Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Read the Third time, and passed.

ALLIANCE AND LEICESTER (GIROBANK) BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Tuesday 19 May.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 4) BILL (By Order)

CROSSRAIL BILL (By Order)

EAST COAST MAIN LINE (SAFETY) BILL (By Order)

KING'S CROSS RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

LONDON UNDERGROUND (GREEN PARK) BILL (By Order)

LONDON UNDERGROUND (JUBILEE) BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 21 May.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Crime, North Yorkshire

Mr. Bayley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will describe what action he proposes to take to combat crime in North Yorkshire.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): The North Yorkshire police have the resources to maintain a strong and effective police service. We have also encouraged the development of effective crime prevention schemes.

Mr. Bayley: Is the Minister aware that, according to the North Yorkshire chief constable's annual reports, the number of offences in the county in 1979 was 20,000, and falling, and that last year the number of recorded offences was 50,000, and rising? Is he aware that, under the last Labour Government, in five years Labour Home Secretaries gave North Yorkshire 151 additional police officers, whereas in the 13 years of Conservative Government the county has received only 46 additional police officers? Can the hon. Gentleman tell me of any other part of the police service that has had to deal with a 150 per cent. increase in workload with only a 4 per cent. increase in the number of officers? Finally, can he tell me when North Yorkshire will get the additional police officers that it so badly needs to prevent crime?

Mr. Wardle: The hon. Gentleman should beware of making comparisons on the basis of 1979. The average annual increase in reported offences in North Yorkshire was higher in the five years prior to 1979 than it has been since then. The number of police officers in North Yorkshire has risen to 1,391 and there are 447 civilians in post. Nationally, spending on the police has increased since 1979 by 74 per cent., net of inflation. What matters in combating crime is the way in which the police are deployed. That is a matter for the chief constable and the effectiveness of our crime prevention. There are nearly 2,200 neighbourhood watch schemes in North Yorkshire.

Mr. John Greenway: I warmly welcome my hon. Friend to his new responsibilities and warn him that the last junior Minister I so welcomed was my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip. Does he agree that if all police forces in Great Britain were run as effectively and efficiently as the North Yorkshire police, the fight against crime would be all the greater—and more efficent, too? Is he aware that this year the North Yorkshire police have concluded a three-year programme of investment in new telecommunications, computer and telephone equipment, which means that eight officers can now be released to outside duties? Will the flexibility to spend their money in the way that they wish be continued?

Mr. Wardle: I thank my hon. Friend for his first remarks. His knowledge of police matters, for which he is widely respected, is well known. He is absolutely right in what he says about the initiatives that have been taken by the North Yorkshire police. They have taken a number of initiatives and have worked with the local community on crime prevention, to good effect.

Prisons (Education)

Mr. Spearing: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement concerning trends or plans he has for the volume of expenditure on adult education in Her Majesty's prisons.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd): The Government's plans are set out in the White Paper, "Custody, Care and Justice". Payments to local education authorities for education services in prisons in 1992–93 are expected to total £29.9 million, a real increase on last year's expenditure of 8 per cent., following a similar increase last year on the year before.

Mr. Spearing: Although the Minister claims that there is an increase, can he comment on the authorities' reports that a decrease is also being planned? Are not prison sentences partly preventive, partly penal and partly remedial? If education contributes, as it surely will, to a constructive regime, does it not mean that repetition is avoided and further expenditure on the prison service is reduced? Therefore, would it not be better to spend a great deal more on education, if only to obtain the value for money about which the Minister is concerned?

Mr. Lloyd: I think that the hon. Gentleman had to adjust his question slightly. He probably read in the press that there had been an overall cut, but my answer showed that that was not the case. There has been an increase on last year and there were increases in the year before that and the year before that. As the hon. Gentleman suggested, we place education in a central position to equip prisoners for rejoining society as well as to improve the quality of their lives in prison.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I welcome the increase in expenditure on prison education. When I was a prison visitor at Lancaster prison, far and away the most popular course was the literacy course, without which people could not—[Interruption.]

Mr. Lloyd: Because of the laughter, I did not hear the end of my hon. Friend's question. I commend her on the good work that I know that she will have done as a prison visitor. We would probably have fewer problems in Lancaster prison if she could continue to combine her role as a prison visitor with that as Member of Parliament for Lancaster.

Miss Lestor: Will the Minister comment on the situation in Feltham young offenders institution, which I visited recently with my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Keen). I was told—it was quite clear—that, despite the low level of literacy among many of the young men there, education classes and evening classes have all been cut and that there are only about 36 vocational training courses for 800 people. Feltham does not have the staff to maintain a continuing education programme to equip those young men for any sort of job when they come out of the establishment.

Mr. Lloyd: Feltham is one of those institutions where, although expenditure is among the highest for prisons, this year it is somewhat lower than it was last year because funds have been diverted to new prisons and other prisons which have not had a sufficient share of the allocation. I can only confirm what the hon. Lady is implying, which is that education, particularly literacy education, is

extremely important for young offenders. It is essential that those who go into prison unable to read and write should leave being able to do so.

Mr. Dickens: Will my hon. Friend confirm that although the House and possibly the nation are delighted to hear about the tremendous expenditure on teaching prisoners various courses while in custody, we would all be much happier if we could be assured that at the top of the curriculum is a course to teach prisoners how to behave when they are back in society and how to be good citizens again?

Mr. Lloyd: That is the central objective of all prison regimes and I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that his constituents will be much safer if released offenders have been equipped while in prison to lead a successful and effective life with a job that they can hold down.

Weapons

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what initiatives he proposes to take to reduce the carrying and use of knives and guns in London.

Mr. Charles Wardle: The Government have already strengthened controls on firearms and knives and we are keeping the position under close review. Enforcement of the law in London is a matter for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.

Mr. Hughes: Given that the Home Secretary is the police authority for London, will he take cognisance of the fact that robberies using firearms or pointed weapons, usually knives, have increased significantly over the past five years? In Southwark, both types of robbery have increased by more or less 80 per cent. Will the Minister seriously consider responding positively to an initiative that will be coming his way shortly from the police consultative group in Southwark for a proper campaign to persuade young people in particular that carrying firearms and knives is in neither society's nor their own interest?

Mr. Wardle: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there has been an increase in armed robbery, but it is worth pointing out that only one fifth of 1 per cent. of all recorded offences in 1990 involved firearms. Any representations will be taken seriously, and the hon. Gentleman may know that a Home Office study has been commissioned into the source of firearms used in armed raids and robberies. He will also know that the Government have taken action through the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 and the amnesty on firearms in London that followed and have also made it an offence to carry a knife in public places without good reason.

Mr. Wilkinson: Even quiet residential parts of outer London are now, I will not say terrorised, but certainly subject to many more incidents of armed robbery. Local residents are deeply disquieted, as I am. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that penalties for armed robbery will be dramatically increased, because deterrents are clearly not adequate?

Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend is right to say that it has been recognised that there is an increasing number of armed robberies. He should bear it in mind that the maximum penalty for possession of a firearm with intent


to endanger life or to resist arrest is life imprisonment, and it is also an offence for a person to have a bladed or sharply pointed weapon in a public place without good reason.

Mr. Randall: Is the Minister aware that the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which created new offences for these types of crimes, is not resulting in sufficient convictions because of the difficulty of obtaining adequate evidence so that people can be stopped on the grounds of reasonable suspicion? Is he also aware that there is no possibility of ever going back to the old sus-type laws for stopping and searching? What practical steps, therefore, will the Minister take to deal with the dilemma?

Mr. Wardle: The Criminal Justice Act 1988 provided stiffer penalties. The Government believe that police powers to stop and search under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 are adequate. They strike a balance between a constable's discretion to search and the protection of the citizen against arbitrary interference, which is extremely important.

Mr. Gale: This is my first opportunity to welcome my hon. Friend to the Dispatch Box. I suggest to him that the incidents of armed crime involving knives and guns have increased dramatically year on year since the abolition of capital punishment. Will he tell the House what further measures he and the Home Office intend to take to afford proper protection to the men and women of the police force whom we require to enforce our law and every day to face men and women carrying guns and using them against them?

Mr. Wardle: I thank my hon. Friend for his first remark. On capital punishment, he will certainly be aware that its reintroduction is a matter for a free vote in Parliament, and it will no doubt arise again in the future.
The protection of the police was precisely the purpose of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988. It was also precisely the purpose of the amnesty that followed and of the initiatives about six months ago which resulted in the collection of about 1,100 dangerous knives and similar weapons. Another study is being undertaken to review policemen's protective clothing in view of possible attacks by people carrying knives or similar weapons.

Crime Prevention

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next proposes to meet the Association of Chief Police Officers to discuss crime prevention.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Michael Jack): The Association of Chief Police Officers is actively involved in the field of crime prevention and my right hon. and learned Friend will be meeting the association at its conference in June.

Mr. Flynn: In welcoming the hon. Gentleman to his duties, I remind him of the fate of the previous Secretary of State who rightly received his just reward for a record in office which was truly criminal, having presided over record levels of crime—increases of 16 and 17 per cent? Will the new Ministers now resurrect the Morgan report, which was buried by the previous Secretary of State and which recommended that local authorities be empowered to deal with juvenile crime—to have the resources to deal

with it—and to deal with the social causes of crime? Is that not a practical and more constructive way in which to approach the problem of rising crime?

Mr. Jack: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman mentioned the word "practical". I commend to him the document that I have here—"Practical Ways to Crack Crime"—which is one example of the many methods that the Government have pioneered to deal with crime prevention. We do not need to resurrect the Morgan report; we are already aware of local authorities' role in crime prevention and are already encouraging many of them to be at the centre of local initiatives. Last week, I took part in radio interviews to support one such excellent venture in Kettering.

Mr. Lawrence: My hon. Friend is aware that the more the Government do to prevent crime, the more the amount of crime appears to increase. Is he yet able to demonstrate —as he soon should be able to do—that the 100 neighbourhood watch schemes both reduce crime and lead to increased detection of crimes in the areas in which they operate?

Mr. Jack: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for mentioning neighbourhood watch, as that gives me an opportunity to pay tribute to the many thousands of people who give so generously of their spare time to that excellent initiative—such as that in Kirkholt, near Rochdale, where a study has been carried out of an intensive neighbourhood watch operation which has resulted in a 75 per cent. reduction in recorded crime. Such schemes take their place alongside initiatives such as car crime prevention year—intended to tackle one third of all recorded crime. Much work is being done, but I take my hat off to the citizens who play an active part in those efforts.

Mr. Maginnis: When the Home Secretary next speaks to the Association of Chief Police Officers, will he concentrate everyone's thoughts on the need to rationalise the number of constabularies in Great Britain? The administrative demand on the police could then be proportionately reduced and the forces remaining would become more efficient so that they could put more police officers on the ground, where crimes occur. Might it not then be possible to reverse the dreadful decision made last week to place the gathering and collation of intelligence on terrorists in the hands of MI5 instead of maintaining police primacy, which is what ought to be done?

Mr. Jack: My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, who is here beside me, will have noted the hon. Gentleman's comments. Last Friday, my right hon. and learned Friend announced to the House his policies on that matter. We are committed to providing 1,000 additional police officers. Putting them on the ground in the communities in which our constituents live is an important manifesto commitment. My right hon. and learned Friend made clear in a newspaper interview today his priorities on the efficient operation of the police force.

Mr. Butcher: Will my hon. Friend include in his discussions Chief Superintendent Jim Swingewood of Coventry city police? Is my hon. Friend aware that the recent disturbances in Coventry had much to do with drink-related and mindless vandalism and criminality? The criminals are well known to local residents, who are


heartily sick of having to tolerate them in their midst. In connection with crime prevention, and therefore with the prevention of potential copycat violence, have the press not a huge responsibility to report such incidents calmly and accurately?

Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend speaks with the authority of someone who knows his constituents and the problems of his area well. I take the opportunity to pay tribute to the Coventry police for the firm, strong, quick way in which they dealt with the incidents on the street. Those incidents are not tolerable, and involve many of the issues which the Government take seriously, especially the control of alcohol. I shall bear in mind my hon. Friend's perceptive comments in the development of future policies.

Mr. Hattersley: I congratulate the new Minister. He said that there was no need to resurrect the Morgan report, with the clear implication that that report was dead. In April the previous Home Secretary said that it was receiving active consideration. What is the position—has the report been abandoned or not?

Mr. Jack: I did not know that my previous answer had administered the last rites to the Morgan report. We are still studying and giving active consideration to the report. I wanted to ensure that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends understand that we do not deprecate the role of local authorities in fighting crime. I have sought to point out that they are already playing an important part along with many other agencies. The fight against crime involves all of us and I am pleased that some local authorities are playing their part positively in that respect.

Voting

Mr. David Atkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many registered electors did not vote in the recent general election; and what percentage this represents of the total number of registered electors.

Mr. Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will produce a report on the state of electoral registration at the 1992 general election; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: There are more than 43.7 million people on the 1992 electoral register—the highest number of people ever registered in the United Kingdom, and representing over 95 per cent. of the estimated eligible population. Preliminary figures show that the total number of votes cast at the general election was about 33.6 million, so about 23 per cent. of electors on the register did not vote.

Mr. Atkinson: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his well-deserved promotion. Was it his impression of the general election that many more of our constituents failed to meet the deadline for applications for postal and proxy votes and were thus unable to vote on polling day because they were away on holiday? Can my hon. Friend confirm that the deadline was 16 days before polling day? Will he now enter discussions with the appropriate authorities to seek a more convenient arrangement under which electors can exercise their democratic rights?

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend knows that the rules for postal votes were simplified some years ago. It is my

impression that the new procedures were more frequently used in this election than before in that more people voted by post. I am well aware that in my constituency and, I am sure, in others there were complaints that people did not realise that they had to get their applications in on time. The deadline was 23 March, which was 13 or 17 days before the election, depending on whether one counts weekends. We were informed that that time was needed by the local authorities to process the applications, to check them, to send out the ballot papers, to have them back and to ensure that they could be included in the count.
We will have discussions with the local authorities and with the political parties on the lessons to be learnt from the election. I have no doubt that postal votes will be a significant part of those discussions.

Mr. Barnes: I object to the fact that two questions were linked together and that my question was not given an answer. An answer was given merely to the first question. My question asked whether the Home Office would be involved in a report about the state of the electoral register in the 1992 election. I should like an answer to that as well as to the supplementary question that I am about to put.
There is a sense in which most hon. Members represent rotten boroughs. At the previous election, 1–5 million people were missing from the electoral register, according to the Registrar-General and to reports by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. That is a huge democratic deficit. What are the Government and Home Office going to do to correct that? Shall I have to use a private Member's Bill to deal with the matter myself?

Mr. Lloyd: I expect that the hon. Gentleman—I know that he takes an interest in the subject—knows that the OPCS is undertaking special research on the accuracy of the registers. It will have at its disposal the results of the 1991 census, so it is an especially good time to carry out such research. When we have the results, we shall decide what steps, if any, need to be taken. Our discussions about keeping up the register will, no doubt, be part of the inquest which, as I said earlier, we shall hold with the local authorities and with the political parties later this year. The methods used to get people on to the register are advertising and publicity, and there is also the research on and review of the practices of local authorities. Like the hon. Gentleman, we want everyone who is eligible to be on the register.

Mrs. Peacock: What directions are given to electoral registration officers to enable them to compile a fairly comprehensive and factually correct electoral register?

Mr. Lloyd: We provide a considerable amount of advice, but under the law it is up to the officers to do it. The main way is the form to be filled in that is delivered to every household. As there may be another supplementary question from the Opposition Benches, I must say that the community charge register has been very useful in some constituencies as an extra source of information for the electoral registration officer to discover where people may not have put themselves on the electoral register. For example, in the eight constituencies in Leeds, the local authority, using those means to update the register, added 26,000 to the electoral register last year.

Mr. Darling: I congratulate the Minister on managing to remain in the Home Office in the recent reshuffle and I welcome his undertaking to consider postal votes. Many


hon. Members believe that more time should be allowed for people to get postal votes. Is the Minister aware that the registers in some constituencies are grossly inaccurate? There were some cases of people being on the poll tax register, having paid their poll tax, but not on the electoral register. Does he accept that the Government must do far more to advertise the fact that the electoral register is compiled each autumn and encourage people to ensure that their names are on the electoral register so that they are not disenfranchised? Will he undertake to put a little more effort into advertising, in contrast to the half-hearted effort pursued by his predecessors?

Mr. Lloyd: We advertise every year; that amounted to some half a million pounds last year and it will be at least that sum this year. The most important task lies with the electoral registration officer to devise all means locally to ensure that everyone who should be on the register is on it and that those who should not be on it come off it.

Sir John Hannam: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are reports that many disabled people found that polling stations were still inaccessible? Will he consider carefully the suggestion that disabled people should be able to vote at a polling station that is accessible to them and not be unable to vote, as is the case at the moment?

Mr. Lloyd: I am not sure whether we would want necessarily to adopt my hon. Friend's solution. However, he raises a very important issue which must form part of the discussions that I have said are being carried out. A disabled person who is likely to find it difficult to gain access to a polling station is exactly the type of person who should apply for a postal vote.

Remand Prisoners

Mr. Llwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to improve transport conditions and journey times for remand prisoners travelling from remand centres to courts in north Wales.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: I have no plans to make changes to the current arrangements for the conveyance of prisoners to courts in north Wales, which are broadly similar to those in operation in other parts of the country.

Mr. Llwyd: As I have had numerous complaints from constituents and their families about seven-hour journeys to courts, often in inhumane conditions, will the Minister confirm that a remand centre is to be established in north Wales and that in the meantime decent transport facilities will be afforded to remand prisoners?

Mr. Lloyd: I cannot confirm or promise a remand centre, at least not at this point. However, the arrangements for transporting prisoners are well organised. If the hon. Gentleman has particular complaints and would like to see me about them, I should be glad to see him. There are long journeys in north Wales. However, on long journeys the rule is that there must be a stop at least every two hours so that prisoners can get out—[Laughter.]—together with their escorts, so that both may use the lavatory, have a drink and, if it is the appropriate time of the day, have a meal.

Mr. Ainger: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to end the remanding of juveniles into prison department establishments.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): The Government are committed to ending juvenile prison remands as soon as enough local authority secure accommodation is available. We shall ensure that the extra places needed are provided as quickly as possible.

Mr. Ainger: Is the Secretary of State aware that it is almost two years since Phillip Knight from my constituency committed suicide in Swansea gaol at the age of 15 and that the Secretary of State's reply offers no hope to many juveniles currently on remand or in prison? Will he encourage his Department to introduce a scheme whereby we shall no longer see juvenile suicides in our prisons?

Mr. Clarke: I well remember that tragic case. Obviously, we must do everything possible to reduce the risk of repetitions of such cases when young people are held on remand. My answer referred to a specific scheme on which we have already embarked. Specific grants are available for local authorities to provide the necessary secure accommodation. We have already had discussions with the Department of Health. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and I will ensure, if we possibly can, that buildings are designed and constructed. The money is provided specifically so that we can replace remand into prison for juveniles by 1995 at the latest.

Mr. Watts: Will my right hon. and learned Friend also bear it in mind that many crimes are committed by juveniles and that many reoffend while on remand? Will he bear in mind the importance of protecting law-abiding citizens from such offences, as well as taking into account the welfare of juveniles who need to be remanded in custody?

Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. There is an unfortunate necessity to remand in custody a comparatively small number of juvenile offenders. The Criminal Justice Act 1991 made it clear that the ground for such remand should be that there was a threat to the public. There are more than 1,000 such cases each year. We need to provide some additional local authority secure accommodation before we can bring to an end the unsuitable practice of remanding people to adult prisons.

Police Efficiency

Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for reviewing the efficiency of the police force; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I propose to keep the police service subject to a process of continuous review in order to ensure that it delivers an efficient and effective service.

Mr. Mullin: Is the Home Secretary aware that any plans that he has for extracting value for money from our police will be widely welcomed by people of all political persuasions? To start the ball rolling, may I draw his attention to a little racket that has been going on for some years whereby detectives employed by more than half the nation's police forces tour the nation's gaols persuading convicted felons to own up to offences on the unsolved book? They use that as a way of diminishing the crime rate. In Merseyside it accounts for 44 per cent. of all clear-ups.


The House will not be surprised to hear that the West Midlands is not far behind, with about 34 per cent. In my area, the figure stood at 29 per cent. until the new chief constable abolished it. Can the Secretary of State put a stop to this and use the funds that become available to put more policemen on the streets?

Mr. Clarke: I am delighted to hear that I shall have the support of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) in seeking value for money from the police force. I expected to have the support of most people involved and I have recently been rather startled to read accounts by journalists who have not met me and to be criticised by officials of the Police Federation who have not met me either about some of the things that I am supposed to be doing.
I will consider the particular point raised by the hon. Gentleman. I well remember such rumours in the courts many years ago, but I am not sure that they were substantiated in practice. It is always wise to treat clear-up figures and figures of recorded crime with a certain amount of scepticism. What matters is that security is given to the public by an efficient, effective and sympathetic police force.

Sir John Wheeler: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that substantial resources have been invested in our police system in the past 13 years. Will he give thought to improving the inspection arrangements for the constabularies, perhaps through the medium of an entirely new inspectorate arrangement under which reports are published on both efficiency and effectiveness of the use of resources and the deployment of police officers?

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reference to resources. The Government cannot be faulted on the level of resources that we have provided to the police force over the past 13 years. Obviously we must continue to provide the resources that are necessary to support the service in its important work. The inspectorate is an important element in ensuring that efficiency is sustained everywhere. I have already had discussions with the chief inspector of constabulary about ways in which the inspectorate might be strengthened. I shall certainly take on board my hon. Friend's helpful suggestions.

Mr. Sheerman: Does the Home Secretary realise that the Opposition have been calling for a more efficient police force for many years and that he will have our support if he tackles some of the real problems of the police force? Rather than blaming the police for the appalling rise in crime rates over the past 13 years, will he work with the progressive forces within the police force to bring about real change? May I give the right hon. and learned Gentleman a few suggestions for an agenda for change?

Madam Speaker: Order. This presents me with a golden opportunity of informing Members that this is Question Time, not a debate. There must be direct questions to the Home Secretary.

Mr. Sheerman: Will the Home Secretary put on the agenda for change stopping secret societies in all police authorities, decentralisation of management and real change in the inspection process?

Mr. Clarke: I am glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman is in favour of sustaining the efficiency of the police force and that it will be such a non-controversial process,

bearing in mind that it is so widely welcomed on both sides of the House. I should regard it as an extraordinary claim if anybody tried to suggest that the police have been responsible for the increase in the crime rate in recent years. Our job is to support the police in their efforts to provide effective protection to the public against the increase in crime. I shall take on board the hon. Gentleman's interesting suggestions. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), strengthening the inspectorate could be, among other things, a quite important way of proceeding.

Parents' Accountability

Mr. Nicholls: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on proposals to make parents more accountable for the behaviour of their children.

Mr. Jack: The Criminal Justice Act 1991 significantly strengthens courts' powers to involve parents when their children offend. These provisions will come into force on 1 October 1992.

Mr. Nicholls: Does my hon. Friend agree that when a person offends, responsibility for that offending lies not with the Government or society but with the criminal? Is it not entirely right that parents should be responsible for their children's misdeeds? Will my hon. Friend assure the House that the proposals set out in the Criminal Justice Act will ensure that parents are far more aware of their children's misdeeds?

Mr. Jack: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, which highlights one of the most important parts of the Criminal Justice Act. The courts will have powers to order parents to come into court both to support their children at that time and to listen to and learn of some of their misdemeanours. They will ultimately be subjected to the courts' power of binding over, which means that they will be fully involved in ensuring that their children do not recommit offences.

Victim Support

Ms. Primarolo: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the provision of statutory funding for the expansion of Victim Support schemes.

Mr. Jack: Home Office funding for the national voluntary body which supports local schemes, Victim Support, has increased from £250,000 in 1986–87 to £7.25 million in the current financial year. These resources will enable Victim Support to extend the existing work of local schemes and develop further new services for victims who are witnesses in Crown courts.

Ms. Primarolo: As the Minister rightly said, this is funding for volunteers, although the funding co-ordinates the central administration. It is an area which needs considerable expansion at a time of rising crime. Even though the Government's funding has risen, many schemes are losing money because of capping and other financial restraints that confront local authorities, which are unable to make payments.
There is a desperate need to fund the support of victims in the Crown courts. The Government, and especially the


Prime Minister, go on about citizens charters, and perhaps they should include in them adequate funding of citizens who are victims and witnesses in court so that they can receive the support that they need.

Mr. Jack: I have some good news for the hon. Lady on two counts. First, the Government's policies that will bear down on the efficiency of local authorities should enable them all to be more generous to victim support schemes in future. Secondly, in the next financial year we are committed to raising resources for the Victim Support scheme to £8.3 million. That should help them in the expansion of the work to which the hon. Lady referred. One of the inhibiting factors that have been identified in extending this work has been the availability of suitable people. That is an area in which, perhaps, the hon. Lady could give encouragement.

Mr. Corbett: May I welcome the Minister to his new responsibilities? Will he confirm that a reason why there has had to be an increase in funding for Victim Support is that in the past 13 years the number of victims of crime has more than doubled? Is not the planned increase for the next few years inadequate for the job? Will he confirm that Victim Support must run from its grant the victim services in 83 Crown courts? Does he not believe that that bill should be more properly picked up by the Lord Chancellor?

Mr. Jack: We take our responsibilities in this area seriously. The hon. Gentleman did not refer, for example, to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, which has a budget just short of £150 million. That means that we provide substantial help to those who are the victims of crime. If he had listened throughout Question Time he would have heard my right hon. and learned Friend and hon. Friends talking about how we shall combat crime, especially violent crime.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. French: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 May.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. French: Does my right hon. Friend agree that although it is desirable to have an easy flow of goods and people between countries, it is essential to maintain effective national border controls, not only as part of our fight against international crime and drug trafficking, but to preserve that extra security which we as an island nation have come to expect?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. The benefits that we see from the freedom of movement could easily be lost if we could not protect ourselves against terrorism, smuggling and illegal immigration. On border controls, the Government do not agree that article 8A requires the abolition of all controls on people at the Community's internal frontiers. It is our policy to control

the entry of nationals at the point of arrival. That is the most effective way of control for an island nation, and our European partners must understand that.

Mr. Kinnock: Is the Prime Minister aware that today's rise in unemployment is the 24th consecutive monthly increase? Is he aware that during the past year unemployment has increased by over half a million and that unemployment among 18 to 24-year-olds has increased by more than 200,000? Against that background, does he think it right to continue cutting Government funding for training?

The Prime Minister: Any increase in unemployment is one too many. I accept that, and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about it. The only way we shall create permanent jobs that will be sustained and will provide proper career opportunities is to have the return of confidence, the right levels of investment and the right economic background. That is what we are seeking to achieve. That is the right way to deal with unemployment in the short term, the medium term and the long term. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have one of the most substantial training schemes that this country has ever seen or any other country has ever seen.

Mr. Kinnock: Does not the Prime Minister yet accept that a critical part of any policy for future employment is a good, strong, continuing policy on training? The figures in the Government's White Paper on public expenditure —[Interruption.] The figures in the Government's own White Paper show that there is to be a continuing cut in employment training and youth training. There are 800,000 young people aged between 18 and 24 who are unemployed now. Is it not clear that the Government's message to them is no jobs, no training, no hope?

The Prime Minister: I do not believe that that is remotely accurate. On the substantive part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, training is improving all the time. More workers are qualified—up to 73 per cent.—more people are staying on at school for more skills and more firms are investing in training, the figure for which is now £20 billion. This Government have created 300,000 training places whereas the Labour Government created 700. Just a few weeks ago the British people were well aware of which party would put the nation back to work and they made their choice decisively.

Mr. Kinnock: Since the Prime Minister wishes to refer to it, the fact is that under the last Labour Government unemployment reached a maximum of 1.25 million. It is now well over double that. This Government have never managed to get unemployment down to that level. Why will he not face up to the problem of unemployment, accept his own figures and understand that the Conservatives have not only sabotaged employment in this country and lost 1 million jobs in the last two years, but are not providing employment training in the way that should be provided in any modern country, let alone one with 2.7 million unemployed people?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman should sometimes recollect that there never have been a Labour Government who did not push unemployment up dramatically. A higher proportion of our nation—70 per cent., a higher proportion than anywhere else—is in work. Our job creation record throughout the 1980s was better


than that of most European Community countries, providing over 2 million more jobs than in 1983. The right hon. Gentleman takes a selective view of the rest of the world. He ignores it when he talks of recession. He accepts it when he talks of unemployment. He might need a more consistent line if he becomes leader of the Socialist International.

Mr. David Evans: I congratulate the Prime Minister on his stunning victory at the general election. Will he take this opportunity to congratulate the people of Welwyn Hatfield on getting rid of a Labour administration after 13 years? Will he assure me that we shall not hold the next Conservative party conference in Sheffield and that we shall not close the conference in total darkness with fireworks going off? [Interruption.] They might all turn out to be damp squibs, as happened to the Labour party.

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes his own distinctive points in his own distinctive way, and I have no doubt that the voters of Welwyn Hatfield, in returning him, have seen him do precisely what they expected of him. In response to his direct question, I can certainly confirm that the next Conservative party conference will not be held in Sheffield.

Mr. Wareing: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Wareing: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when his predecessor first entered the House, it was five months before she made her maiden speech and that, when she did, she introduced a Bill which opened up local authority meetings to the press and public? In view of the secrecy that presently surrounds the meetings of hospital trusts, will the right hon. Gentleman introduce legislation under which all management committee meetings are open to the press and public?

The Prime Minister: I have told the hon. Gentleman that the Chancellor of the Duchy is examining areas of government where it is possible to remove levels of secrecy. That has begun and will continue. We shall make the outcome known to Parliament in due course.

Mr. Bill Walker: When my right hon. Friend is carrying out his review, and is taking stock of the situation, of Scotland, will he bear it in mind that his leadership and the firm stand taken by him and the Secretary of State for Scotland against assemblies and parliaments in Edinburgh resulted in the splendid general election result and the subsequent splendid result at the district elections, in which Perth and Kinross district council was restored handsomely to Conservative control?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, I believe that the Union has ensured that Scotland plays a full part in the most stable political entity to be found anywhere in Europe. It has served the whole of the United Kingdom well. It has certainly served Scotland and England well. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said recently, Scotland is alive and flourishing. Indeed it is. We welcome that. It is alive and flourishing within the Union.

Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister realise that, despite his attacks on our proposals for a carbon tax

during the election campaign, we now greatly welcome his conversion to the case for a carbon tax to tackle global warming? Does he accept that the European Commission's proposals are too timid and too conditional to attack that problem effectively, that the next response must come from the Americans and that he has a role in persuading the Americans to make that response?

The Prime Minister: There are many ways to deal with the problem of CO2 and we still await the Commission's formal proposals. We cannot yet be certain what it will do. It is absolutely clear that it would make sense to adopt such a tax only if our major competitors in the world also did so, both for environmental reasons and because acting alone would harm competitiveness in this country and across Europe. I shall discuss with Japan and the United States what action might be taken, but I have no intention of prejudging what that action might be.

Mr. Brandreth: Did my right hon. Friend happen to see the punch-up in the Italian Parliament yesterday, when it was attempting to elect a new President? Does he see that as an example of the benefits of proportional representation or merely a dress rehearsal for the election of a new loser—so sorry—new leader of the Labour party?

The Prime Minister: I did not see that particular report, but I am aware of Italy's present difficulties as it tries to determine a new Government after an election that has split the political parties through using proportional representation.

Mr. Janner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Janner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in the midst of a viciously high level of crime, the Leicestershire police force has been forced to cut its budget for the current year by more than £1 million? Will he, therefore, please take this opportunity to deny reports that the Government are placing pressure on his right hon. and learned and reticent Friend the Home Secretary to cut central funding for police forces, because to do so would be irresponsible, dangerous and totally unacceptable?

The Prime Minister: Those who know my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary would not suggest that he is readily susceptible to pressure. He will be as concerned as the Government have been in recent years to ensure that the police force is equipped for its battle against crime.

Mr. Carrington: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Carrington: Some pensioners and other people on low incomes in Fulham often struggle to pay their heating bills. Will my right hon. Friend, therefore, join me in warmly welcoming the 3 per cent. reduction in gas prices announced today? Does not that show that privatisation, if properly and effectively regulated, is to the benefit of everyone?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I welcome the 3 per cent. cut in prices that has been announced. It adds to the reductions in recent years since privatisation took effect and illustrates clearly the benefits of competition.

Ms. Hoey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Ms. Hoey: Does the Prime Minister agree that even if every single empty property in local authority and private sector control were used for families, there would still be a huge shortage of affordable, rented housing? Will the Prime Minister tell the House simply how many affordable, rented homes he plans to build in the next Parliament?

The Prime Minister: It would be a great improvement if all those empty properties, largely in the ownership of Labour authorities, were made available for letting. It would also make a tremendous difference to the availability of property if the Labour party would remove its long-standing prejudices against the private sector, which discourage so many people from bringing private property into the market for letting.

Mr. Hague: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hague: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming today's report that, in line with the patients charter, the General Medical Council is to propose the biggest changes in the regulation of doctors for 150 years? Will he also welcome yesterday's statement by the British Medical Association that, from now on, it wishes to work with the Government in implementing health reforms? Is not the increasing acceptance of the Government's health policies by the medical profession a vindication at last of the work that has been done in the past few years to ensure that the health service today is better funded, better managed and provides a better service to its patients than ever before?

The Prime Minister: I very much agree with my hon. Friend and with the statement made by the chairman of the British Medical Association. We now have a far better working relationship. As a party, we are looking ahead. Indeed, it is only the Labour party which fails to look ahead to see the changes, improvements and benefits taking place in the health service as a result of our funding and our reforms.

Business of the House

Dr. John Cunningham: Will the Leader of the House tell us the business for next week, please?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY 18 MAY—Second Reading of the British Coal and British Rail (Transfer Proposals) Bill.
TUESDAY 19 MAY—Motion for the Spring Adjournment.
Second Reading of the Non-Domestic Rating Bill
Motion on the Customs Duties (ECSC) (Amendment No. 7) Order.
WEDNESDAY 20 MAY and THURSDAY 21 MAY—Second Reading of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill.
FRIDAY 22 MAY—Debates on the Adjournment.

Dr. Cunningham: When we debate the European Communities (Amendment) Bill next week, will the Prime Minister speak on behalf of the Government? Is it the Government's intention to seek the suspension of the 10 o'clock rule on the first day of debate? When Second Reading is concluded, I urge the Leader of the House to agree that the Bill should be considered in Committee of the whole House.
Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for an early statement from the Secretary of State for Employment, not only because of the appalling further and very sad increases in unemployment announced today, but because of the apparent threat, highlighted in the Financial Times today, to the future of the training and enterprise councils throughout the United Kingdom? Is it not really tragic that, in view of the level of unemployment and the already inadequate provision of training facilities, the future of the TECs seems so heavily at risk?

Mr. Newton: First, I can confirm that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will open the debate on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill next Wednesday. Secondly, it is proposed to move a motion to allow the debate to continue after 10 o'clock on the first day. Thirdly, I can confirm that it will be proposed that the Committee stage of the Bill be taken on the Floor of the House. I am sure that that will have the general assent of the House.
On the hon. Gentleman's second set of questions, he will have heard what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said only a few minutes ago on training and on the unemployment figures. I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. It might be of assistance to the House if I said something at this stage about the conduct of business questions, about which I have been concerned for some time.
The purpose of these questions is not to make the speech that hon. Members might hope to make later, or to obtain an instant ministerial reply. That is not the purpose of business questions. The purpose is to ask for a debate and to state briefly why that debate should be granted. The

Leader of the House should not be asked questions about House matters; those should be put to him during his own question time.
I feel very firmly that, in fairness to others, only one subject should be raised per question, so that I can call as many hon. Members as possible. In that way, I hope that both questions and answers will be briefer than they have been in the past. I hope, too, that the House will trust my judgment when I believe that it is time to move on to our next business.

Mr. Frank Field: As Maxwell pensioners have lost, and are losing, their pensions, will the Leader of the House make room next week for a debate so that the Government can make their position clear?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman had an opportunity, as he will well recall, to raise these matters during the recent debate on the Loyal Address, and he received a response from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. He will have many opportunities next week, with debates on the Whitsun Adjournment and in other ways, to raise all sorts of matters.

Mr. William Cash: In the debate on Maastricht, how will we be able adequately to debate foreign policy questions? Does my right hon. Friend know when the treaty on foreign policy will be ratified under the Ponsonby rule? Is it the usual 21 days after it has been deposited on the Table of the House? If so, when does that period expire, and will we have a full debate at the same time as the opportunity to discuss the other contents of the Bill?

Mr. Newton: In response both to that question and to a point raised with you, Madam Speaker, yesterday afternoon by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), let me say that I have taken steps to examine the availability of relevant documents. My understanding is that all are available in the Vote Office, and I am taking further steps to ensure that adequate stocks are available to hon. Members.

Mr. Peter Hain: I refer the Leader of the House to early day motions 44 and 55.
[That this House, noting that the following 23 honourable and Right honourable Members for Torbay, Wanstead and Woodford, Dorset North, Harrogate, North West Norfolk, Holland with Boston, Upminster, Davyhulme, Romsey and Waterside, Epsom and Ewell, North Norfolk, Stroud, Fareham, Mid Bedfordshire, West Gloucestershire, Arundel, North Wiltshire, Colne Valley, Aldridge-Brownhills, Bosworth, Reading East, Westminster North, and Weston super Mare, are Lloyds names who have been in membership of syndicates which have suffered catastrophic losses totalling hundreds of millions of pounds, and could therefore face individual bankruptcy and disqualification, calls upon the President of the Board of Trade to institute a full public inquiry into insider dealing, financial mismanagement and corruption in Lloyds and to demand wholesale reform and independent regulation, bearing in mind that if even half these 23 colleagues of his are indeed declared bankrupt, the Government could lose its majority.]
Can he make time next week for an urgent debate on the crisis in the Lloyd's London insurance market? There is now clear evidence of insider dealing, fraud and financial mismanagement in Lloyd's. There is additional evidence that the council of Lloyd's, in discussion with the


Department of Trade and Industry, is involved in an attempt, using institutional finance, to bail out Lloyd's names, including those who are Members of Parliament. Why will not the Government have a proper public inquiry and a proper Government statement for debate in the House, or are you involved in a cover-up to protect your own majority?

Madam Speaker: Order. I deprecate some of the language used in the House by hon. Members. Questions can be couched in far better terms than that.

Mr. Newton: Your deprecation, Madam Speaker, enables me to avoid deprecating that suggestion myself. I reject the hon. Gentleman's suggestion entirely. As he knows, there are a number of inquiries going on, and it would not help to institute yet another one.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Could my right hon. Friend arrange for us to have an early debate on armed forces matters? I am sure that the House knows very well that, arising from the "Options for Change" exercise, large numbers of changes are to be looked at, including the possibility that operational sea training in my constituency will be moved to another base. It would be helpful if we could have an early debate on these matters before the summer recess.

Mr. Newton: I will draw that request to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence but I might also, on this occasion, fall back on something on which I may fall back again in the course of business questions today. It is that, next week, there is to be a three-hour debate on the motion for the Whitsun Adjournment, and a number of timed debates on the Friday, and that will give hon. Members on both sides of the House many opportunities to raise matters.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Given that, in the week after next, there is a week's recess, can the Leader of the House tell us when, I hope in Government time, we shall have an important and necessary debate on the United Nations conference in Rio, the earth summit, which is starting at the beginning of June? Time for such a debate is running out. It should be held in Government time, but it is one that would be widely supported on both sides of the House.

Mr. Newton: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I have just given, but, furthermore, we have just had a six-day debate on the Loyal Address with a one-day debate on the environment.

Mr. James Kilfedder: Will the Leader of the House provide time next week for an urgent debate on the scandalous decision by the Eastern health board to close 70 beds in the Bangor, Ards and Ulster hospitals, in addition to massive and drastic cuts imposed on those hospitals in the past 18 months? This decision will be detrimental to the people of North Down and cause massive unemployment among nurses and other staff. Therefore, there is an urgent need for a full and lengthy debate.

Mr. Newton: I do not think that I can promise a full and lengthy debate on that, in addition to the business already arranged for next week. I shall, however, ensure that my

right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is made aware of what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Does not the Leader of the House appreciate the critical and urgent nature of the problems facing contributors to the Maxwell pension schemes? Having contributed throughout their lives, some of those people have been told that their cheques will be stopped, and other schemes are to be wound up. Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the Government must make a statement next week, and tell us what lifeline they will offer people who are entirely blameless following a sorry and sordid episode?

Mr. Newton: As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, I am more than aware of the concerns and difficulties involved, having been Secretary of State for Social Security until about six weeks ago. I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the current Secretary of State to what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Sir Michael Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that, given the deadline in respect of commission interest in the proposed takeover of the Midland bank, the House urgently needs to know the Government's thinking? The matter affects not only trade and employment but, perhaps critically, many aspects of foreign policy and our relations with Hong Kong.

Mr. Newton: I note my hon. Friend's views. He will be aware, however, that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is advised on such matters by the Office of Fair Trading. It would therefore not be appropriate for me to comment.

Mr. Peter Shore: The Leader of the House has said that documentation is already available for the debate on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill that is to take place on Wednesday and Thursday. I believe that we all have copies of the Maastricht treaty, which runs to 130-odd pages; but, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, most of its contents take the form of amendments to the earlier treaties, and it is therefore extremely difficult to follow. Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that he has accepted the suggestion that was taken up yesterday by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen)—and, I believe, subscribed to by you, Madam Speaker—and ensure that a document of analysis, with legal interpretation, is also available?

Mr. Newton: I have already undertaken to ensure that all the relevant documents are available. I have a list of the available documents, and I shall try to ensure that it is appended to Hansard's report of the business statement. I did not read it out to the House because it would have taken rather a long time.

Sir James Spicer: My right hon. Friend will be well aware of the unhappiness felt by most people about the bunching of spring bank holidays. Easter Monday is followed by the May bank holiday, and then almost immediately by Whitsun. Will my right hon. Friend give the House an early opportunity to discuss the matter, and perhaps to consider moving the wretched May day bank holiday to October?

Mr. Newton: Let me start by observing wrily that, in my experience, many people welcome all these bank holidays. Leaving that aside, however, I think that I have enough problems at present without staging a debate on bank holidays.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I thank the Leader of the House for his reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). Can he assure us, however, that the list to which he referred will include a copy of the treaty of Rome as it will be if the treaty of union is approved? Is he aware that, in a reply given to me on 11 May—it can be found in column 25 of Hansard—his hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, implied that he had a copy of the treaty of Rome as it would be? So far, however, it has not been published. Surely it is a very relevant and necessary document.

Mr. Newton: For most normal purposes of debate in any forum of which I have been part, when a document has been subject to amendment we have examined both the document concerned and the amendments; but I note what the hon. Gentleman has said about my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and I shall try to establish the position with him.

Mr. Paul Marland: Lest there be any misunderstanding, let me remind the House that I am a name at Lloyd's. In a more sober mood, I too wish to ask for a debate on Lloyd's. It is becoming clearer every day that there is evidence of Lloyd's having breached the Lloyd's Act 1982, and, in so doing, ruining many investors in the Lloyd's market. Will my right hon. Friend reflect soberly on the matter, and consider the possibility of a full-scale debate?

Mr. Newton: I thought that my hon. Friend put his point in an entirely serious and responsible way. I shall respond similarly by saying that I shall reflect upon what he said and draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

Mr. Robert Parry: The Leader of the House will have seen early-day motion 40.
[That this House welcomes the book, To Encourage the Others, by David A. Yallop, calling for an independent public inquiry into the hanging of Derek Bentley in 1952; requests the Secretary of State for the Home Department to set up the inquiry as a matter of urgency; hopes that such a request will lead to a posthumous pardon; and feels that this will end a grave miscarriage of justice which leaves a permanent blot on the British judicial system—the hanging of an innocent man.]
It has been signed by 174 Members of all parties. This is the fourth Session in which I have tabled this motion. Will the Leader of the House ask his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to make an early statement in the House in order to explain why the Home Office appears to be dragging its feet on this matter?

Mr. Newton: The Home Secretary has just been answering questions, but I presume that the hon. Gentleman did not get the chance to ask him this one. My right hon. and learned Friend is giving this case very careful consideration, and he will reach a decision as soon as possible on whether he thinks that any action on his part is called for.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is concern throughout the House about the appalling plight of those people who are going to inherit the poisonous legacy of that dreadful crook Maxwell? Can we please have a statement next week before the House rises?

Mr. Newton: I do not think that I can add to what I have already said, but I shall draw my hon. Friend's comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Rev. Martin Smyth: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 20 and the amendment?
[That this House calls for the immediate establishment of the departmental select committees so that Parliament can exercise its constitutional duty to hold Government to account and scrutinise its activities; and calls upon the House to ensure that in the future the establishment of select committees within one month of an election should become the duty of the Speaker under standing orders.]
I urge the Leader of the House to work with the usual channels to have those Select Committees set up so that we can start working when we return here after the spring Adjournment.

Mr. Newton: I note what the hon. Gentleman says and the contents of the letter that he wrote to me recently about the self-same matter. I think that he will understand that at this moment I cannot add to what I said in the debate on the Gracious Speech last night.

Mr. Robert Adley: Regarding Monday's business, does my right hon. Friend agree that a politically driven timetable for the future of British Rail could have damaging consequences? As a matter of fact, can he tell me whether in parliamentary history there has ever been a case of a paving Bill for an industry being produced by a Government before the White Paper on the future of that industry had itself been produced?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend was kind enough to intimate that he might ask a question along these lines. In the intervening three quarters of an hour, I have been unable to discover an answer to his question. If there is no precedent, all that I can say is that there has to be a first time for everything.

Mr. Bob Cryer: In view of the confusion over the Maastricht debate, will the Leader of the House consider postponing it and having a debate instead on the three reports from the Select Committee on Members' Interests, which have now been published—in one case over six months ago? As the Leader of the House knows, they concern the financial involvement of Select Committee chairmen and chairwomen and the new registration rules for Members which are recommended to this House, including the declaration of Lloyd's syndicates.
If those reports are allowed to gather dust for much longer without being debated, the suspicion will inevitably be engendered that the Tory Government are allowing Tory Members of Parliament to line their pockets through moonlighting, by ignoring recommendations from an all-party Committee that the rules should be tightened up to stop that moonlighting and pocket lining.

Mr. Newton: I sometimes think that, whatever we debated and did, the hon. Gentleman would still think that


suspicion was being engendered. As for his question, I do not think that he will expect me to undertake to put off the debate on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. I shall obviously consider the rest of what he said with a view to deciding whether there is any response that. I can make—but certainly not next week.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I know that the Government share the concern of many hon. Members that some of the powers in the treaty of union they would not wish the European institutions to have. However, the Government say that we are protected by the principle of subsidiarity, which is in the treaty of union. This is a very important issue. Would it be possible for the Attorney-General to make a full statement to the House, before we debate the treaty, on the effect of the principle of subsidiarity and what it means? Furthermore, would it be possible for him to bring with him an opinion from a judge of the European Court of Justice, just to see whether he would have the same thing to say as the Attorney-General?

Mr. Newton: I shall draw my hon. Friend's comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: Will the Leader of the House make time for an urgent debate on the rising levels of crime in, I think, every hon. Member's constituency? If he finds time for that debate, will he ask his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to explain why, when I have raised the issue in the House before, I have been assured by Ministers that there was access to inner-city initiatives to fight crime and to the urban fund, yet my constituency has been excluded from both?

Mr. Newton: I will take note of those comments and pass on appropriately the hon. Lady's wish to see Halifax included in the safer cities programme, which is helping a considerable number of places. Apart from that, I am beginning to feel as if I am being treated by the frustrated as an extension of Home Office Question Time.

Mr. John Townend: When will proposals be brought before us to implement the recommendations of the Jopling Committee on the future workings of the House?

Mr. Newton: I think that my hon. Friend knows—he certainly will if he was able to listen to my remarks last night in the debate on the Address—that we think that the first step is a debate in the new Parliament on the report as a whole. I hope to arrange time for that not too long after the recess.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate on early-day motion 17 which relates to lady Kurdish hunger strikers?
[That this House recognises the right of those fleeing political persecution to safety; further recognises their right to family re-union; notes that 62 Kurdish-Alevi asylum seekers who arrived in Britain in 1989 from Turkey have been on hunger strike since 1st May for the right of family re-union after the determination of their application; and accordingly calls upon the Home Secretary urgently to review these cases and bring an end to the misery of these divided families.]
They are at present on hunger strike around London demanding the right of family reunion. They want their

families to come from Turkey where they are suffering great danger. If this issue is not dealt with quickly, further suffering will occur. It is an urgent matter and I ask the Leader of the House to make some appropriate arrangements for the issue to be debated and to ask the Home Secretary to examine the cases urgently so that those poor people can come to this country and live in safety.

Mr. Newton: We are, as I think the hon. Gentleman knows, willing to consider representations in the cases of the 62 hunger strikers referred to. I shall ensure that the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is drawn to the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate next week on the growing practice of hospitals charging for parking by visitors and others? That now includes Ealing hospital, where a charge of £10 for over six hours is to be levied. Could the debate be arranged so that I can ask a question about Ealing and ensure that there and elsewhere there is special free parking for those visiting people in intensive care and other vital categories, while not defending those who park in hospital car parks for their own purposes?

Mr. Newton: I imagine that my hon. Friend has taken up this matter with Ealing health authority. I shall ensure that it is drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. My hon. Friend may wish to raise this matter during one of the opportunities next week.

Mr. David Winnick: When the Leader of the House sees his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, will he press upon him the necessity for an early statement next week on the plight of the Maxwell pensioners, bearing in mind that, in one Maxwell-owned company, 70 per cent. of the pension is being lost? There is desperate hardship and anxiety among those adversely affected by the dishonesty and crooked behaviour of Maxwell. I hope that it will be possible for such a statement to be made before the House rises for the recess because of the continuing hardship and anxiety of those to whom I have referred.

Mr. Newton: Once again, I cannot add to what I said earlier. However, I shall add the hon. Gentleman to the list of those whose representations I shall draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Sir Anthony Grant: Would it be possible, perhaps next week, or now if necessary, to place on record the appreciation of hon. Members on both sides of the House of the great service rendered to the House by the right hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Mr. Walker) as Chairman of Ways and Means? His work has been appreciated by all hon. Members.

Mr. Newton: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. I should perhaps say that I sought to pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman last night at the beginning of my speech on the Address and I was struck by the warmth with which my remarks in that respect—although not in all others —were treated by the House.

Mr. Clive Betts: May I request the Leader of the House—following his previous reply—to


ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to make a statement to the House on the proposed takeover of Midland bank by either Lloyds or the Hongkong and Shanghai bank? It is important not only to the bank's ordinary high street customers but to small businesses which want competition in loans and lending. It is also very important to many of my constituents who work at Midland bank's headquarters in Sheffield and who are unsure about their futures.

Mr. Newton: I shall indeed draw those remarks to my right hon. Friend's attention.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Following the question asked by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), could the Leader of the House make a statement next week about the reappointment of the Select Committees? It is outrageous that rumours are going around that the Select Committees will not be established until October. They cost about £50,000 a week, and it would therefore cost the House more than £1 million if they were not re-established until October. They do very important work on the House's behalf.

Mr. Newton: As my hon. Friend is no doubt aware, I adverted to the matter in my speech last night in the debate on the Address, as did my opposite number, the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). We both made it absolutely clear that we hope that the Select Committees will be set up without undue delay.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House tell the President of the Board of Trade that it is high time he came here to the Dispatch Box to explain his conduct regarding Olympia and York and his dealings with it? That firm, which is £12 billion in debt, is just like the Maxwell empire of yesteryear, running from bank to bank to keep its head above water. Through the President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary of State for the Environment, the Government are bailing it out. Instead of using £100 million to bail out a squalid company, they should be using the money to build houses for the homeless.

Mr. Newton: I do not think that I can promise the hon. Gentleman that I shall talk to my right hon. Friend in precisely those terms, but I shall draw his attention to what has been said.

Mr. David Harris: Just in case my right hon. Friend has not got the mood of the House, may I underline all the pleas for a statement on the Maxwell affair? He himself came before the Select Committee to give evidence several weeks ago and he knows the questions that are uppermost in the minds of those of us who serve on the Committee. One of those questions involves the plight of a particular group of pensioners, those who worked for, and in some cases still work, for British International Helicopters, which was sold into the clutches of Maxwell when the Government refused to endorse a management buy-out of the British Airways helicopter division. Therefore, the Government have a special responsibility to those pensioners. Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that and do something about it?

Mr. Newton: Noted, of course. That enables me to add one word on the matter, which is that the Government will —rightly—be responding to the Select Committee's report in due course.

Mr. Max Madden: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Home Secretary to make a statement next week on the future organisation and funding of the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service? As the Leader of the House will know, UKIAS provides advice and representation for some of the most vulnerable people in our communities—including divided families—and it also employs a number of people in offices throughout the country. Will he ensure that no final decisions are taken on funding by the Home Office unless and until the Home Secretary has consulted the House?

Mr. Newton: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will take careful note of the hon. Gentleman's views as expressed in the last moment or two.
[The following documents relating to the Treaty on European Union should be available in the Vote Office for the Second Reading debate on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill:

Treaty of Rome, as amended by the Single European Act (Cm 455);
Treaty on European Union (Cm 1934);
Foreign Affairs Committee Report on "Europe After Maastricht", Volumes I and II (Report and Evidence: HC 223);
Observations by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on the FAC Report "Europe After Maastricht" (Cm 1965);
White Paper on Developments in the European Community, July-December 1991 (Cm 1857);
White Paper on Development in the European Community, January-June 1991 (Cm 1657);
Report by House of Commons Select Committee on European Legislation on the 1991–1992 Session, including an analysis of the Treaty on European Union by the Committee's Legal Adviser ( to be published by HMSO on 14 May: HC 24-xv).
Third Report from the Health Committee on the European Community and Health Policy. ( HC 180 );
Minutes of Evidence taken before the Home Affairs Committee on 5, 12 and 26 February 1992 on Migration Control at the External Borders of the European Community. (HC 215);
Minutes of Evidence taken before the Treasury and Civil Service Committee on Economic and Monetary Union. (HC 285);
Fourth Special Report from the Treasury and Civil Service Committee on European Community Finances. (HC 334);
European Communities Act, 1972;
European Communities (Amendment) Act, 1986;
European Parliamentary Elections Act, 1978.]

Adjournment Debates

Madam Speaker: I need to remind the House that, on the motion for the Adjournment of the House on Friday 22 May, up to eight hon. Members may raise with Ministers subjects of their choice. Applications should


reach my office by 10pm on Monday next. The ballot will be held on Tuesday morning, and the results made known as soon as possible thereafter.

Local Government Finance (England)

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Howard): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about local government finance and community charge capping in England.
Local authorities have now set their budgets and charges for 1992–93. The vast majority of budgets are at sensible levels reflecting what charge payers and the country can afford.
More than 400 authorities have budgeted within or very close to the limits implied by the provisional capping criteria announced last autumn by my right hon. Friend, the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). This outcome clearly demonstrates that my right hon. Friend was more than justified in his belief that authorities would find his provisional criteria manageable.
In overall terms, the total of local authority budgets is about 1 per cent. over the amount for which we made provision in our settlement, and the average headline charge is £282, with the average amount of charge actually met by charge payers being less than £200. This result is in no small part a tribute to the good sense and responsibility of local government.
I have carefully considered authorities' budgets. In the light of these budgets and all other relevant considerations, I have now decided my capping principles—that is, the criteria in accordance with which I must designate authorities for capping.
The principles I have today adopted give effect, with one modification, to the provisional criteria announced last autumn. This modification is that I have included a de minimis proviso. This will avoid designation in cases where the reduction which could be secured by capping would be less than £1.50 per adult.
I have decided that the de minimis principle will be appropriate this year, having regard to a number of considerations. Those considerations include the provisional criteria, the budgets which all authorities have in the event set—bearing in mind that in the great majority of cases they reflect what charge payers and the country can afford—the scale of reductions in budgets, and the costs of rebilling and associated expenses which, but for this principle, would be required. It should not be assumed that in any future year we would judge such a de minimis principle to be appropriate.
On the basis of those principles, 10 authorities are to be designated: Basildon, Cheltenham, Gloucester, Gloucestershire, Greenwich, Hillingdon, Lambeth, Langbaurgh, Middlesbrough and Warwickshire.
For each of those 10 authorities I also propose caps —that is, the level to which we propose authorities should reduce their budgets. I have made available in the Vote Office, and shall be printing in the Official Report, a table setting out my principles and showing for each designated authority the cap that I propose and the budget reductions implied by it. In each case, on the basis of all the information currently available to me, I am satisfied that my proposals are reasonable and appropriate in all the circumstances of the individual authorities concerned, and that my proposed reductions are achievable this year. The reductions in charge range from £58 for Basildon to £3 for Gloucester.
Authorities now have 28 days in which to tell me whether they accept the amount proposed. They can also challenge my proposal, suggesting an alternative figure together with reasons for it. In such circumstances, it is open to me to set the final cap at a higher, lower or, indeed, the same level as the one I originally proposed. If an authority does not accept my proposed cap I have to set the final cap by order, a draft of which must be approved by the House.
Within 21 days of the final caps having been set, the authorities must set new lower budgets reflecting their caps which feed through to lower charges. How long the

Community charge capping 1992–93 Table of designated authorities and proposed caps


Column 1
Column 2
Column 3
Column 4
Column 5
Column 6
Column 7


Authority
1992–93 budget
Proposed cap for 1992–93
Proposed reduction
proposed cap change on 1991–92 budget
Original average community charges for 1992–93
Community charge reduction implied by proposed cap £



(£ million)
(£ million)
(£ million)
(Per cent)
(Per cent)
(£)
(£)


Absolute Excessiveness


Basildon
27.01
20.15
6.86
25.4
-8.8
361
58


Langbaurgh
18.50
16.50
2.00
10.8
5.8
376
18


Middlesbrough
21.60
20.20
1.40
6.5
0.0
353
14


Excessive Increase


Cheltenham
10.84
9.91
0.93
8.6
6.6
330
12


Gloucester
10.34
10.15
0.19
1.9
10.3
310
3


Gloucestershire
327.80
317.91
9.89
3.0
6.5
279–347
25


Greenwich
228.81
220.04
8.77
3.8
3.3
287
56


Hillingdon
167.14
166.27
0.87
0.5
10.3
295
5


Lambeth
333.20
328.79
4.41
1.3
5.7
449
23


Warwickshire
299.76
292.99
6.77
2.3
6.5
290–353
19

Notes:

A. Designation is on the basis of the following criteria:

1. any increase of more than 6½ per cent. over the previous year's budget is an excessive increase if it gives rise to a budget over SSA;

2. any increase of more than 4½ per cent. over the previous year's budget is an excessive increase if it gives rise to a budget of over 5 per cent. above SSA;

3. any increase of more than 12½ per cent. over the previous year's budget is an excessive increase if it gives rise to a budget of over 10 per cent. above SSA;

4. any budget more than 12½ per cent. above SSA is excessive save that an authority will not be designated if:

(a) its budget is 30 per cent. or less above SSA and is a cash freeze or reduction on its 1991–92 budget

(b) its budget is 60 per cent. or less above SSA and at least 5 per cent. below its 1991–92 budget

(c) its budget is at least 10 per cent. below its 1991–92 budget

5. if the excess in an authority's budget over the above criteria is less than the equivalent of £1.50 per adult that authority is not designated.

That criteria for inner London boroughs are the same as for other classes of authority save that for the purposes of comparison the amount of inner London education grant is deducted from budgets.

B. Column 1 of the table lists those authorities designated since their budgets are excessive (criterion 4 above) or represent an excessive increase over the previous year (criteria 1 to 3 above).

C. Column 2 shows 1992–93 budgets set by the designated authorities.

D. Column 3 shows the proposed caps for 1992–93.

E. Column 4 sets out the reductions in budgets implied by the proposed caps both in terms of cash and percentage.

F. Column 5 shows the percentage change from the 1991–92 budget to the proposed cap.

G. Column 6 lists the original average community charge or charges in the area of each designated authority for 1992–93.

H. Column 7 shows the reductions in community charges implied by each proposed cap.

Mr. David Blunkett: This sorry statement is an admission of failure and a capitulation to those who believe that centralised Government should take precedence over democracy. The delay in delivering this sorry statement has already meant confusion and financial loss, and it makes it very difficult for councils to exercise their rights in appealing in the way that the Secretary of State spelled out this afternoon.

process takes depends in part on how authorities respond to my proposals, but I expect that by the end of June or early July all authorities will have set new budgets leading to reduced charges.
We and local government generally can rightly find satisfaction in the sensible and prudent way in which the vast majority of authorities have budgeted. But a few authorities are still failing to act responsibly. Parliament has given me powers that enable me both to secure as necessary the expenditure restraint by local authorities needed to meet our wider economic goals and to protect all charge payers against excessive budgeting. My decisions today reinforce our strategy of expenditure control, and will benefit about 1.8 million charge payers.
Following is the table:

Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that not one of his predecessors agreed with capping as a solution to the future relationship between local and central Government? Will he acknowledge that his immediate predecessor condemned capping as
an act of centralised power outside our experience … On those grounds alone, it should be resisted"?


Will the Secretary of State confirm his own words when he spoke as Minister with responsibility for local government when the capping regime was introduced for the poll tax? When introducing the legislation he said:
We have made it clear on more than one occasion that we see the capping power introduced in the clause as a reserve measure … It is important that there should be such a reserve power … to protect the charge payers of an area against extreme cases of extravagant and irresponsible local authorities.—[Official Report, 25 April 1988; Vol. 132, c. 51.]
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm to us this afternoon that he believes that the criteria of extravagance and irresponsibility can be applied to Conservative-controlled Warwickshire, to Conservative-controlled Hillingdon, to the people of Gloucestershire or to the city of Gloucester whose residents will save a staggering £3 a year as a result of the actions of central Government? Will the Secretary of State tell us whether he agrees with himself, whether he agrees with his predecessor or whether he agrees with the unknown Secretary of State who believes that authorities such as Warwickshire and Hillingdon are profligate and extravagant?
Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that this is the eighth year of capping and that the Government are still abusing local authorities as though they and not the Government were responsible for high bills and reduced services? Will he explain to the House why the people of Warwickshire, Gloucestershire, Greenwich and Hillingdon should not choose the level and range of education provision for their children and of the social services provided for the elderly and for disabled people in their area?
Why should people not be left to exercise their own responsibility, to determine the opportunities available to them and to have a real chance of partnership between governed and governing—a partnership between local and central Government based on diversity, pluralism and respect for democracy? We in the Labour party accept the verdict of the people. Why will the Conservative party and the Government not do the same at local level?
On what criteria has the Secretary of State the right to determine what should happen at local level when the standard spending assessments are universally acknowledged to be flawed, when the national non-domestic rate is determined centrally, when 86 per cent. of spending is directed by central Government and when the remaining 14 per cent., as we can see this afternoon, is fixed through the capping process by a Government heady with victory and contemptuous of dissent?
Why should district councils across the country have been allocated an increase of 50 per cent. in their standard spending assessments when a council such as Middlesbrough, which has been capped this afternoon, has had a standstill budget over the past two years? No wonder people regard this capping regime and this afternoon's announcement as a discredited act by a Government who have no other means than central power to determine what they do for the people of this country.
Does the Secretary of State not agree that this is another bad day for democracy and another example of intolerance, of elective dictatorship and of the Government determined to have their own way over the wishes of local people? The losers are not the councils to be capped this afternoon, but the communities whose services will be cut.

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman engaged in the usual ritualistic condemnation of capping that we always hear from the Opposition. However, that carries no conviction. If capping is anathema to Opposition Members, why did they propose during the general election campaign a cap on the revenue-raising powers of the Scottish Assembly about which they were so keen? Where is the logic in proposing a cap on the Scottish Assembly but no cap on local authorities? If the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) or any other Opposition Members want to attack our proposals, perhaps they will explain that incomprehensible inconsistency in the Labour party's attitude.
The only consistent theme to emerge from the remarks of the hon. Member for Brightside—a consistent theme also in the remarks of all Opposition Members—was that the Opposition display no concern about the need to control public spending. Local authorities spend about £60 billion a year. Any Government worthy of the name must be concerned that local profligacy is curbed. That message was clearly endorsed by the electorate on 9 April.
Basildon's proposed budget for 1992–93 is 114 per cent. above its standard spending assessment. Langbaurgh's is 52 per cent. above. Cheltenham proposed an increase of 16.6 per cent. over last year and Gloucester a 12.4 per cent. increase. Those budgets were excessive by any standard.
Two things are crystal clear: first, almost all local authorities have responded sensibly and responsibly to our guidelines; secondly, Conservative councils continue to deliver far better value for money than Labour or Liberal Democrat controlled councils. The average community charge in Conservative-controlled London boroughs was £86 lower than in Labour-controlled boroughs. In the metropolitan and non-metropolitan districts the average difference was £54. Those figures speak for themselves. That is why the Labour party suffered such a crushing defeat on 7 May and that is why the words of the hon. Member for Brightside sound so hollow.

Mr. Michael Shersby: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that Hillingdon is £1 million over the cappling limit because it has had to spend £936,000 this year caring for unaccompanied child refugees from Eritrea, Angola, Uganda and elsewhere? Those children come into Heathrow, are abandoned there and fall into the care of Hillingdon. The cost of that operation is not met by the standard spending assessment. Is my right hon. and learned Friend further aware that Hillingdon has reduced expenditure by £30 million since May 1990 and has reduced the number of staff by 1,400? Will he kindly tell the House on what basis Hillingdon can appeal and over what period? Will he assure me that he will give the most careful and sympathetic consideration to a very difficult human problem?

Mr. Howard: I certainly understand my hon. Friend's concerns. We have sought to take into account all relevant circumstances in dealing with Hillingdon's budget. I give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks and will consider very carefully any representations made to me by Hillingdon. The council has 28 days in which to make representations to me and I will give any such representations the most careful consideration.

Mr. Bill Olner: Has the Secretary of State taken into account the views of independent accountants and auditors who described my county as one of the most


efficient in Britain? Why has he not taken into account the thousands of constituents who have written to him expressing concern about education, social services and all the other services that Warwickshire provides, including fire and rescue and the police services, which are under great threat? They are underfunded and have been told so by the Home Office. Why has he not taken those views into account? Why does not he agree that Warwickshire's standard spending assessment and the capping formula are flawed and work to Warwickshire's disadvantage? Warwickshire is a Tory-controlled authority, guaranteed to be one of the meanest in the country, yet it is still being capped. Why?

Mr. Howard: I have sought to take into account all the relevant factors affecting Warwickshire. Indeed, we changed the SSA for Warwickshire for this year to reflect some of the points that were put to us by the county council. The county council benefited from the changes which we made to the methodology. The effect of the cap that I propose will be to reduce the average community charge for the residents of Warwickshire by £19 a year. If the hon. Gentleman cared about the interests of his constituents, I should have thought that he would pay some attention to that proposed reduction. I shall, of course, carefully consider any representations made to me by Warwickshire. It has 28 days in which to decide how it wishes to respond to my proposals. I shall listen to what it has to say with great interest.

Mr. Olner: But what about services? Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, if he did not bring in a cap, each charge payer in Greenwich would have to pay virtually 25 per cent. more? Is he aware that only one council in the country has been capped every single time since Greenwich put its rate up by 59 per cent. in one year in 1983? Would my right hon. and learned Friend be willing to consider meeting a deputation from all parties to discuss the standard spending assessment, which is an outstanding problem for Greenwich? Will he also accept that most charge payers will welcome this news and wish that Greenwich would get on and make those who are not paying the community charge pay up so that those who pay do not have to pay for those who do not?

Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. My proposals for this year would produce a £56 saving on the average community charge paid by the residents of Greenwich. That would be over and above the total of £74 which capping has saved the average charge payer in Greenwich in the past two years. I can certainly confirm that I shall consider carefully any representations made to me on behalf of Greenwich. I shall be happy to meet the deputation proposed by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the Secretary of State aware that local authority leaders of all political persuasions now complain that they are no longer able fully to discharge their legal duties to disabled persons under sections 1 and 2 of the Chronically Sick and

Disabled Persons Act 1972? Is not this a deeply serious matter both legally and in social policy terms? What does this afternoon's statement do to meet that complaint?.

Mr. Howard: This is a matter for the priorities which local authorities attach to the relevant demands which they have to meet from their budgets. That is something with which they are familiar and anyone who has been elected to office is familiar. Any responsible office holder has to make difficult decisions of that nature. I am satisfied that the proposals that I have made today are appropriate, reasonable and achievable, but, as I have said, I am prepared to consider any representations that are made to me by any of the affected authorities.

Mr. Paul Marland: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the huge overspending of Gloucestershire county council is as a result of the profligacy of the Liberal and Labour coalition? Whenever—

Mr. Simon Hughes: But the Conservatives run Gloucestershire.

Mr. Marland: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The overspending was historic when the Liberals were in charge with Labour party back-up. They gave the Labour party a slush fund with which to back its special projects. It is as a result of that profligacy that Gloucestershire county council finds itself in serious difficulties. When the Liberal leader of Gloucestershire county council was warned by Mr. Cockcroft, the treasurer of the county council, of the overspending, he waved it aside. In effect, he said, "We are not interested in this. We shall go ahead with this spending anyhow."
May I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's determination to cap Gloucestershire? During the election campaign many of my constituents were begging me to ensure that the county council was charge-capped.

Mr. Howard: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that he is absolutely right in his description of the way in which my proposals are likely to be greeted in Gloucestershire. The effect of my proposals would be to reduce the average community charge for the residents of Gloucestershire by £25, which I believe they will warmly welcome. I believe also that they are convinced that they can have adequate services and good value for money at the lower levels that I propose.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: Bearing in mind that Warwickshire has one of the lowest expenditures per pupil on education of all the counties and that Her Majesty's inspectors of both the fire service and the police force have expressed their concern about the low expenditure on those services, how would the Secretary of State advise Conservative county councillors to deal with the problems of underfunding? He has virtually disowned them as overspenders and said that he will cut the amount of money that they have. Has he not brought into ridicule the policy of poll tax capping which was brought forward by the Government?

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman's points are entirely misconceived. No doubt the first reaction that he would have if I tried to tell the leaders of Warwickshire county council how to spend their money would be to claim that I was interfering with local government and taking over their responsibilities. That is what would be said. I am


announcing the appropriate discharge of the responsibilities of central Government. Central Government's role in these matters is to control overall public expenditure and to protect the community charge payer. That is the purpose of the proposals that I am putting forward. As I have said, I shall be prepared to listen to anything that Warwickshire county council may put to me over the next 28 days or beyond, and to take into account in making my final decisions any further factors that it thinks are relevant.

Mr. Terry Dicks: In support of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), I must say that the Secretary of State's approach to Hillingdon is disgraceful to say the least. When he suggests that the authority is acting irresponsibly, along with the others, that is an insult to my Conservative colleagues on the council, who have made substantial savings over a period. I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to withdraw that comment, a blanket comment which included my friends on the council. Does he not realise that with Heathrow in Hillingdon, and in my constituency, there is no choice but to pick up these children? During the election campaign many people suggested on their doorsteps that we should send the children back or leave them there. My right hon. and learned Friend must understand that unless he takes an understanding view of a problem that is not Hillingdon's but which involves it because of the airport—it is a national problem—he will have a fight on his hands with myself and my colleagues on the Hillingdon council.

Mr. Howard: I understand the seriousness of the concerns which my hon. Friend has expressed, in common with my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby). We have sought to take into account all relevant factors that affect Hillingdon. I shall listen with great care to anything that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) or Hillingdon council may say, and ensure that we give proper weight to all the relevant circumstances. However, my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), the then Secretary of State for the Environment, set out some clear criteria, which were known to all local authorities when they came to set their budgets for 1992–93. The criteria were known to Hillingdon as they were known to other local authorities. I regret that Hillingdon was not able to comply with the criteria and I shall pay careful attention to any representations that it wishes to make.

Mr. Nigel Jones: Does the Secretary of State agree that his statement affects councils across the political spectrum, takes away local accountability and imposes central diktat? Does he recognise the arbitrary nature of the formula, which has brought low-spending authorities such as Gloucestershire into capping? That is illustrated, for example, by the fact that boundary changes made to Cheltenham last year have not been taken into account. Will he promise the House that he will be genuinely open to persuasion over the next four weeks by all the councils that are affected, and that any formula for next year will only be one that has been agreed by him and the local authority associations?

Mr. Howard: I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks. I shall be genuinely open-minded about representations made to me on these

matters. He is wrong to suggest that the boundary changes that affected Cheltenham were not taken into account in my decision. We made full allowance for the boundary change in our calculations. It was my duty to protect community charge payers in Cheltenham, as in Gloucestershire generally, but I shall listen to any representations that Cheltenham or Gloucestershire wish to put to me in the next few weeks.

Mr. Alan Howarth: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recognise that in Warwickshire we have full regard for the need for economy in public finances and that Warwickshire county council has run its affairs stringently? Does he accept that any formula designed to apply across the country as a whole is bound to be broad-brush and will throw up anomalies? Will he, therefore, on appeal look carefully and, indeed, sympathetically at the case for relaxing the cap on Warwickshire? Will he also look at the application of the formula and, in particular, the area cost factor and the additional educational needs element in it, which have operated powerfully to the detriment of Warwickshire?

Mr. Howard: Again, I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. The whole purpose of the process that this statement puts in train is to enable the affected authorities to bring to my attention any factor that they think I may have overlooked or to which they think I may have given insufficient weight. Last year, we made a number of changes from the original proposals in response to representations of that kind. I shall listen carefully to all the representations that are made to me, including representations from Warwickshire in particular.

Mr. John Fraser: Before the Secretary of State smiles like a busy undertaker, may I remind him that in Lambeth it was the Tory party which had a resounding defeat? Although it is the second most deprived borough and has the highest poll tax bills in the country, does he realise that the effect of capping for the sake of about 50p a week will be only to throw many poll tax payers into confusion, because they have received their payment books already, and make it much more difficult to collect the poll tax, thereby creating greater financial problems for the future? It is bound to lead to a cut in services, particularly worryingly in education. Is it not, therefore, better to leave matters as they are, because the long-term costs of this capping will be to increase costs and make it much more difficult to get money in to spend on council services?

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman might also have mentioned that Lambeth receives from central funding £1,628 per adult towards the cost of local services—the sixth highest in the country and £200 per adult more than neighbouring Wandsworth. If Lambeth could manage its affairs efficiently and collected the money it was owed, there would be no need for charge payers to be faced yet again with the highest community charge. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman dismisses the reduction of £23 in the average community charge in Lambeth, which would be the result of these proposals. Community charge payers in Lambeth will regard it as a significant advantage.

Mr. David Amess: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the sensational local election results in Basildon, with swings of between 20 and 50 per cent. towards the Conservatives, showed that the residents


were sick and tired of a rotten, high-spending, inefficient, socialist council and wanted sensible services and a low community charge? Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept my gratitude that that is what my constituents will now get?

Mr. Howard: I am delighted to have this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend and the councillors in the area that he represents on their astounding and spectacular victory on 7 May. I have put forward proposals for Basildon's budget for this year. I am confident that in future years, the new council of Basildon will adopt a very different and much more responsible attitude to these matters than its predecessor has done.

Mr. John Austin-Walker: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is all-party agreement on Greenwich council that the standard spending assessment formula treats Greenwich most unfairly? Will he comment on the situation in relation to the allocation per child on the children's services which gives Greenwich £39 per child and Wandsworth £209 per child? Will he also comment on the reduction that would come to Greenwich poll tax payers if they received grant in the generous way that it is received in Wandsworth? Would he and the Secretary of State for Education be prepared to come to Greenwich to meet parents and other residents and ask them directly whether they feel that Greenwich council spends too much on schools and adult education?

Mr. Howard: Greenwich is receiving £1,433 per adult from central funding in 1992–93, which is a rise of 5.1 per cent. on the previous year's figure. As for the SSA, the hon. Gentleman will have heard my response to my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley). I am prepared to consider, in the context put forward by my hon. Friend, representations that may be made to me about the SSA for Greenwich.

Mr. Roger Knapman: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on the great care and consideration he has shown before reaching decisions on these complex matters. Is he aware that in Gloucestershire, Conservative councillors and council officers produced a detailed budget showing that they could manage well within the existing record budget, and that only Liberal and Labour councillors there wanted to spend £10 million more? What effect would that have had on those on lower and fixed incomes?

Mr. Howard: I confess that I was not aware of what my hon. Friend just said, though it does not surprise me. It is a characteristic of the difference between Conservative local government and local government controlled by the other parties. I cannot give a figure in answer to the question that my hon. Friend asked, but the proposals that I have put forward today would reduce the average community charge in Gloucestershire by £25. I am sure that that would be welcomed by my hon. Friend's constituents.

Ms. Kate Hoey: I and other hon. Members representing Lambeth are disappointed that the Secretary of State has not taken into consideration any of the remarkable improvements that have occurred in the borough's administration and in the delivery of services

during the past year. It is indeed sad that no recognition has been given to those improvements. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that an all-community delegation will be anxious to come and see him to put Lambeth's case? Will he give a commitment now that he will see not just the leader and members of the council but a grouping of various people, including the churches and local police, who wish to see him to put Lambeth's case?

Mr. Howard: The representations that we shall be examining carefully will not in any way be limited to those from local authorities or councillors. If other interested bodies and groups wish to put points to us, we shall look at them with great care, give them full account and take them fully into consideration before reaching our final conclusion.

Mr. Douglas French: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that his announcement this afternoon will be welcomed by my constituents in the city of Gloucester, in so far as it relates to overspending by Gloucestershire county council? In the general election they voted decisively against Labour and Liberal policies, of which the overspending on Gloucestershire county council is a prime example. May I reserve judgment on his decision relating to Gloucester city council, in relation to which there may be some special factors which he should take into consideration?

Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said about Gloucestershire. I understand that he wishes to reflect on the position in Gloucester. If he can convince me that there are special considerations which fall properly to be taken into account, I shall listen carefully to what he says.

Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: Will the Minister accept that a central problem facing Langbaurgh council over the years has been the way in which the SSA has been worked out, in that it has worked to the detriment of the council, to the point at which we no longer have any reserves left? He has assured the House that, on appeal, he will look at the way in which the SSA is worked out. If that is not the case, will he explain what will be the position? If he willing to look at how the standard spending assessment is worked out for specific councils, will he explain why he is suddenly prepared to do so when all-party delegations have approached his predecessors on the matter for the past six years and been refused?

Mr. Howard: I repeat that I shall take into account all relevant considerations in deciding whether I should modify the proposals that I have made today. I look forward to hearing from the hon. Lady and Langbaurgh council on the matters that they consider relevant. I understand the concern in many areas about aspects of those matters, which is why it is important that we have, as part of our process, a procedure that enables those representations to be made and requires them to be taken fully into account. That is what I shall be doing.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful for my right hon. and learned Friend's announcement that Gloucestershire county council's budget will be reduced by the huge figure of £10 million. Does he agree that the charge reduction of £25


will lift a huge, unnecessary burden from my constituents in Cirencester and Tewkesbury, particularly those on fixed and low incomes?

Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. One of the functions of central Government is to intervene where necessary to protect charge payers. That is why we have kept a capping power and why I have put forward those proposals today. My hon. Friend's remarks truly speak for his constituents.

Mr. Clive Betts: First, I presume that the Secretary of State is aware that the standard spending assessments that form part of his capping criteria are based on 1981 census data. Is he really telling the House that it is the act of a rational Government to determine the services to be provided to people in those 10 authorities on the basis of data collected 11 years ago?
Secondly, bearing in mind that two of the poll tax reductions are £3 and £5 a head, can the Secretary of State assure us that in all cases the savings to those councils and their poll tax payers will be greater than the cost of rebilling?

Mr. Howard: It is the act of a rational Government to make such decisions on the best information available to them. That is what we have done, but if any local authority or other interested party has better or more up-to-date information which they wish to draw to our attention, we shall look at it. That is the purpose of the process that begins with today's statement. Naturally, we have sought to take into account all relevant and up-to-date information leading up to my announcement today. On the hon. Gentleman's second point, the cost of rebilling in the authorities to which he referred will not exceed the reduction in the size of the budget resulting from my proposals. That is one of the factors which we have considered and which has entered our decision-making process. The hon. Gentleman's assertion is not borne out by the facts.

Mr. James Pawsey: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his statement. Will he confirm that Warwickshire is being kept at £293 million, which represents a £6 million shortfall on the budget? Is he aware that if the cap is not lifted, it will have a strong adverse effect on the services offered by Warwickshire county council? Does my right hon. and learned Friend further agree that the real problem in Warwickshire is not a spendthrift local authority, because Warwickshire is careful, but the way in which the SSA operates? Can he assure the House that we can look forward to a reform of the SSA?

Mr. Howard: The proposed cap for Warwickshire is a fraction under £293 million. We keep the standard spending assessment constantly under review. We reviewed it last year and made certain changes to the methodology, from which Warwickshire benefited. We shall continue to keep it under review and I look forward to hearing any representations that my hon. Friend may wish to make on those problems.

Mr. Harry Barnes: If votes were to follow voices, the Government's overall majority would be down to about three. That is obvious from listening to the comments of the Conservative Members from Warwickshire. The capping system will never fit in

any circumstances because of the fiddled formula for standard spending assessments. One of the greatest fiddles is the provision for enhanced population, which in some cases is a reduced population. If an area is a seaside resort, if there is a racecourse there, or if there is any other reason why people move there, the funding is increased because of the way that the formula is operated.
In north-east Derbyshire, where people have to move I o Sheffield, Chesterfield or the Markham pit area to find work, the formula used means that the central Government grant is cut. We should stop the fiddle that affects Derbyshire county council, North-East Derbyshire council and other district councils in Derbyshire. I hope that some Conservative Member will speak on behalf of them.

Mr. Howard: There is no question of any fiddling in the standard spending assessment. It is a realistic attempt to reflect the different circumstances of different local authorities for the purpose of assessing Government grant. Labour Members always used to criticise the Government for reducing the proportion of spending on local government services that came from central Government. We have now substantially increased that provision, but the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) this afternoon criticised us for doing that. Labour Members really need to sort themselves out and introduce an element of consistency into their approach to these matters.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: Is it not true that not a single Derbyshire council, whether county or district, has taken the risk of being capped this year? They have learnt the lesson of two years ago when the county was capped by the then Secretary of State and the council had its fingers burnt.
What advice would my right hon. and learned Friend give to the teachers of Derbyshire who once again face redundancies in large numbers because of the county council's policy to keep the price of school meals at the same level as it was 11 years ago?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right on her first point. The very fact that the number of authorities to be capped under our proposals is as few as 10 shows the extent to which our policies have succeeded. We set out the clear criteria in advance and the vast majority of authorities took careful note and ensured that their budgets complied with them.
On my hon. Friend's second point, I well understand the grievances that many residents of Derbyshire rightly have about the behaviour of Derbyshire county council. Their remedy lies in the ballot box and it will not be very long before they have an opportunity to make their views clearly known in that way.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On many occasions since 1981, the people of Derbyshire have had the opportunity to use the ballot box. In 1981, they ousted the Tory group in Matlock. At the following election, the Labour party increased its majority, and at the following election it had another massive majority. At the last election, the two Tory Members of Parliament who are always calling for the sacking of teachers, home helps and everybody in sight who has to work for a living had their majorities cut—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is capable of asking questions and I am sure that he is going to do so straight away.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Conservative hon. Members for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) and for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim), who are always spouting in here, had their majorities cut by 4,000 and 8,000 votes?

Mr. Howard: For the second time in two days, I must refresh the hon. Gentleman's memory. I seem to recall—and I am sure that he remembers—the confident predictions that were made by Labour Members before the last election that neither of my hon. Friends would be with us after the general election. They are both here, they are both well, and they will both continue to speak for the people of Derbyshire for many, many years to come.

Mr. Philip Oppenheim: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the only people whom we want sacked in Derbyshire are the Labour hangers-on, such as the chairman of Derbyshire Labour party and a bunch of ex-Labour councillors who have been given well-paid jobs on the county council by the Labour leader? On the two occasions on which the former Labour leader of the county council stood for election in Amber Valley —which was supposed to be a safe Labour seat—he was trounced, once by a majority of 9,500.
Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that Derbyshire county council persists in wasting more than £15,000 a year with its policy of pegging school meals at 1981 price levels? That does not even help the children of the poorest families because they get free school meals. Is he further aware that, if capped, the council could make reasonable savings? The people of Derbyshire, with the exception of a few diehards in the Labour party, would welcome capping. Will my right hon. and learned Friend give extra special consideration to capping Derbyshire—that is, if it is not abolished in the meantime?

Mr. Howard: I understand the force that lies behind my hon. Friend's remarks. He and my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) are the authentic voices of Derbyshire and they are sitting here today on behalf of the people of Derbyshire. Their voices will be recognised over the next few months and in the county council elections next year, which we await with confident expectation.

Mr. William O'Brien: I hope that the Secretary of State will take note of the sincere appeals made to him by some Conservative Members about the capping announced in his appalling statement. Will he also

note that there is no such thing as standard assessment of spending in local government? Each local authority has its own problems, so to say that there is a standard spending assessment for each authority is misleading and wrong. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should accept that standard spending assessments do not work. He should note what has been said by his colleagues this afternoon and cancel his statement.

Mr. Howard: I am not aware that any of my hon. Friends have asked me to cancel my statement; nor am I aware that any of them attacked the concept of capping. I shall take careful note of what they said and, indeed, of what Labour Members said. I shall certainly give careful consideration to all representations made to me on this matter.
In criticising standard spending assessments, the hon. Gentleman should bear it in mind that as long as we accept that it is appropriate for central Government to make a substantial contribution to the costs of local government services—and I understand that that is common ground across the House—there will have to be a system by which that central Government contribution is allocated. We are never likely to arrive at a system that gains universal acclaim and enthusiasm in all quarters. That is impossible because of the nature of the process.
We shall continue to keep SSAs under review. I shall listen carefully to all representations, but I believe that my statement and the proposals that I put before the House will be widely welcomed as a serious contribution to the objectives of keeping general public spending under control and of protecting community charge payers in the areas that I propose to designate.

Statutory Instruments, &c.

Madam Speaker: With permission, I will put together the next two motions on the Order Paper.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

BUILDING SOCIETIES

That the draft Building Societies (Member States) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

NATIONAL CURRICULUM

That the draft Education (National Curriculum) (Foundation Subjects at Key Stage 4) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Wood]

Question agreed to.

Ways and Means

[Relevant documents: European Community Document No. 10212/91 and COR2, the Commission's Annual Economic Report 1991–92.]

Madam Speaker: It may be for the convenience of hon. Members if I remind them that the debate will take place on the first motion—amendment of the law. The remaining motions will be put at the end of the debate and they will be decided forthwith.

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you clarify the position on the first resolution, which affects the provision of zero rating of tax and refunding of tax? Those subjects are covered in the Maastricht agreement, the treaty on which is being debated, as you know, next Wednesday and Thursday. In view of the provisions in the Maastricht agreement, if, by some unfortunate chance, the Bill is passed, will amending legislation have to be incorporated in the Bill to effect the provisions that we are discussing today?

Madam Speaker: That is a rather hypothetical question. In due course, it will become a matter for Ministers, but the provisions in front of us are in order, and we must now proceed with them.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): I beg to move,

1. Amendment of the law

That it is expedient to amend the law with respect to the National Debt and the public revenue and to make further provision in connection with finance; but this Resolution does not extend to the making of any amendment with respect to value added tax so as to provide—

(a) for zero-rating or exempting any supply;
(b) for refunding any amount of tax;
(c) for varying the rate of that tax otherwise than in relation to all supplies and importations; or
(d) for relief other than relief applying to goods of whatever description or services of whatever description.

It is nice to hear that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) is confident that we shall secure our resolutions and that the Bill about which he is so worried will be passed.
I begin by paying tribute to my predecessor, Francis Maude. This is the season of maiden speeches and, in that tradition, it is right to record the considerable achievements of my predecessor not only in tax, which is the interest of the House in this debate, but in a much wider range of responsibilities that he had in his time in the Treasury. He was the Minister responsible for the management of the citizens charter programme and for the introduction of the principles of better government which were enshrined in the White Paper "Competing for Quality". The themes for which he was responsible as Financial Secretary are themes to which we shall return repeatedly during this Parliament and during the rest of the decade. I am sure that I speak for all my right hon. and hon. Friends when I say that I very much hope that Francis will soon be back among us playing his distinguished part in our debates.
The resolutions before the House represent the practical demonstration and putting into effect of another of the major themes of the 1990s. They are not new: they are a continuation of the Budget debate, because almost all of them were on the Order Paper during the Budget debate

before the general election campaign and were resolutions on which that debate took place. The debate did not stop when Parliament was dissolved. Rather, it moved into the country. No one can doubt that the debates in the general election campaign were a continuation of the Budget debate that had started in the House.
Furthermore, the issues on which the Budget debate centred were at the heart of the election campaign. The electorate were given a clear choice between the resolutions set down after my right hon. Friend's Budget, based on his commitment to a continued programme of reduction and rationalisation of the tax burden, and the programme espoused and articulated by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith). They represented an increase in the tax burden of £7 billion, and that was only the first instalment of what he hoped to introduce.
Given that clear choice, the decision of the electorate was decisive. The best news for my right hon. and hon. Friends would be if the Labour party elected the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East as its leader, because we are already preparing the ground for a rerun of that debate in four or five years time. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends look forward with keen anticipation to continuing that debate in the country.
I thought that the House might find it helpful if I took some time to explain how the resolutions fit with the measures announced by my right hon. Friend in his Budget on 10 March. The principal purpose of the resolutions is to complete the implementation of my right hon. Friend's Budget measures. If the House approves them, we shall publish a Finance Bill containing the necessary provisions on 20 May.
In the Finance Act passed before the general election, the House approved many of my right hon. Friend's most important Budget measures. That Act confirmed the Budget changes in the rates of excise duties, VAT penalties and the halving of car tax. It cut income tax from 25 per cent. to 20 per cent. on the first £2,000 of taxable income. It also overrode statutory indexation to keep unchanged the levels of the married couples allowance for under-65s and the basic rate limit. The Act also introduced monthly payments on account for the largest VAT payers.
A number of other Budget measures did not require Finance Bill legislation. For example, the income tax personal and age-related allowances rose in line with inflation under the statutory indexation provisions. Indexation of the income tax car scale charges and the VAT registration threshold were implemented by Treasury orders. So too were changes to the VAT treatment of cars, and extensions of VAT reliefs for charities.
Thus, many of the most significant Budget measures are, I am pleased to say, already law. We are now proceeding with all the remaining tax changes announced in the Budget and before.
Perhaps the most important of the Budget measures left to be implemented are the changes to business rates. These will be worth £480 million in 1992–93 and £590 million in 1993–94 to businesses throughout the United Kingdom. They will be implemented by the Local Government (Finance) Bill announced in the Gracious Speech.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The hon. Gentleman will know that in Scotland there is continuing dissatisfaction among businesses about the fact that business rates paid by Scottish-based businesses and those


paid by businesses based in England differ to the tune of £450 million a year. The Government have said that they intend to close that gap. When will that be achieved? How long will it take? When can businesses in Scotland be expected to compete on an equal footing with comparable businesses in the rest of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Dorrell: When the Government give commitments to change the tax system, we implement them in good order and in reasonable time. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a clear end date to the process that he is probing, but I am sure that, if a commitment has been given, it will be carried out.
Of the Budget measures left to the Finance Bill, perhaps the most significant are changes to inheritance tax. Although resolutions are not required, the Bill will, as my right hon. Friend promised on Budget day, raise the threshold for inheritance tax to £150,000, backdated to 10 March. It will also free most business assets from inheritance tax altogether, fulfilling another promise made by my right hon. Friend in his Budget.
So much for the provisions of the forthcoming Finance Bill that do not require resolutions. The resolutions that are the subject of today's debate fall into four categories. First, some prepare the way for the implementation of those Budget measures that have not yet become law. Secondly, some provide the changes to the indirect tax system consequent on the completion of the European single market on 1 January 1993. Thirdly, some address a number of technical issues designed to improve the working of the tax system. Fourthly, some provide for two new measures, which were announced last week.
In the first group, resolutions 11 and 12 set the main and small companies rates of corporation tax at 33 and 25 per cent. in the financial year 1992. We have the lowest headline rates within the European Community and the G7 countries. As a result of this and of other measures introduced last year, companies will pay £1 billion less in corporation tax in 1992–93 than otherwise would have been the case. The United Kingdom corporation tax regime for smaller companies is one of the most generous in the industrialised world. Over 80 per cent. of United Kingdom tax-paying companies are liable at the small companies rate of 25 per cent., which is applied when profits do not exceed £250,000.
Another provision of importance to many businesses that was announced by my right hon. Friend concerned capital allowances for computer software. Resolution 21 paves the way for the changes that he announced. At present, most business expenditure on computer software is allowable for tax purposes either as a deduction for revenue expenditure or, if it is capital expenditure, under the capital allowances regime.
However, capital expenditure on the right to use software, including expenditure on licences, does not qualify for relief because capital allowances are available only where the taxpayer has outright ownership of the asset concerned. Similarly, capital expenditure on software which has, for example, been transferred by electronic transmission does not qualify for any form of tax relief because the taxpayer has not acquired a tangible asset. The new rules will ensure that all capital expenditure on computer software qualifies for capital allowances on the same basis as plant and machinery used by a business.
As for income tax, the Bill will implement my right hon. Friend's proposal to give couples more choice over the allocation of the married couple's allowance. The new arrangements will allow married couples to transfer the whole allowance from husband to wife or to split it equally, and will come into force next year. They extend choice, and give fairer treatment in the tax system to women—a process that started with the introduction of independent taxation in the last Parliament.
Resolution 22 will modify the tax rules for maintenance payments following the introduction of the new Child Support Agency. At present, maintenance payments made under a court order to a divorced or separated spouse qualify for tax relief. The change will ensure that maintenance that has been assessed by the Child Support Agency will also qualify for tax relief in the same way. In addition, maintenance collected by the agency on behalf of a divorced or separated person will qualify for tax relief in the same way as it would if it had been paid directly to that person. The changes will begin when the Child Support Agency starts to operate, probably in April 1993.
The Bill will also contain provisions to bring to an end tax relief under the business expansion scheme at the end of 1993, while in the interim allowing the BES to be used for mortgage rescue schemes. The business expansion scheme for assured tenancies—which now accounts for the overwhelming majority of BES funds—was due to expire then in any case. Both that and the BES generally have given a valuable boost to equity investment, and to investment in private rented housing. They were always intended as time-limited pump primers. They have served their purpose, and, as my right hon. Friend said in his Budget, the time has come to end them.
The second group of resolutions—resolutions 2, 6, 7, 8 and 9—deal with the consequences of the European single market for the indirect tax system. The single market will involve the abolition of tax and duty controls at internal EC frontiers from 1 January 1993. That will bring great benefits and cost savings to business, to add to all the benefits that flow from other aspects of the single market programme. I regret to inform the House, however, that the programme also involves a substantial quantity of legislation.
In negotiations within the Community, and in drafting the necessary legislation, we have sought to consult business, for it is business that will have to operate the new systems. Throughout the negotiations, the United Kingdom has insisted that the burdens on business should be kept to a minimum. All the VAT and excise legislation on the single market has also been issued in the form of draft clauses for consultation. Therefore, not only will it receive detailed scrutiny in the House, but it has already been exposed to those who will have to operate it.
Let me briefly explain the key elements of the changes. First, there is VAT. At present, exports are zero-rated for VAT, and VAT is charged on imports. Control of the system is linked to physical controls at frontiers, and the necessary paper work is separate from the normal VAT return. With the single market, those physical controls, and much of the paper work that went with them, will be swept away. Liability to VAT will in future arise as a result not of importation, but of acquisition by the purchaser.
Sales to VAT-registered traders in other member states will continue to be zero-rated. VAT will be payable when goods or services are acquired from another member state. In such cases, VAT will be collected through the normal


VAT return, not separately as at present. Resolution 8 paves the way for that change, which will be implemented by Finance Bill clauses that were issued in draft at the end of February.
Secondly, there will have to be changes to excise duties. The principle will be that duty is paid at the rate that applies in the country of consumption. Excise goods will continue to move within the Community, under duty suspension, between bonded warehouses. To cater for traders who wish to place goods on the market immediately, provision has been made for goods to move from a bonded warehouse in one member state to a registered trader in another and then directly into the market place.
In the United Kingdom, those registered traders will be called REDS—whatever their political complexion. Their designation under last year's Finance Act as registered excise dealers and shippers—REDS for short—is a welcome sign that someone either in Brussels or in Customs and Excise has a sense of humour. Resolution 6 paves the way for provisions to complete the changes that were initiated last year.
As the House already knows, the single market legislation provides that goods on which tax and duty have been paid elsewhere in the Community can be brought back by travellers for their personal use; but United Kingdom tax and duty must be paid on any goods brought in by travellers for resale. That is like an acquisition for VAT. Compliance can be controlled through traders' accounts as well as through the use of declarations at ports. The existing "travellers' allowances" for those arriving from other EC countries will be abolished, but, to help Customs to distinguish between commercial transactions and private importation for personal use, the Council of Ministers has agreed minimum "indicative levels" for alcohol and tobacco. Above those levels, goods will be deemed to be for commercial use unless the traveller can satisfy the Customs authorities that they are indeed for personal use.
The House has considered all that in another form, but legislation will be needed to enact the new levels, to enable Customs to check compliance with them and to support the new excise arrangements generally. Again, Customs has consulted the trade on draft clauses for the Finance Bill, and resolution 7 paves the way for their inclusion in the Bill. I remind the House that duty-free shopping will remain until July 1999, as a result of successful negotiations led last year by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The third group of resolutions address a number of technical issues designed to improve the working of the tax system. Most tax legislation works in the way in which the House and Parliament intend it to work, and people end up paying the right amount of tax. Sometimes, however, tax rules are found to be either more or less stringent than expected, with perverse results. That usually comes to light in the day-to-day dealings that taxpayers or their advisers have with Revenue departments, or when their interpretation is challenged in the courts. The Finance Bill will deal with a number of such cases.
Resolutions 13 and 14 reflect measures announced last November, well before the Budget. Both seek to correct defects in the rules governing the tax treatment of groups of companies. One covers the capital gains tax rules for assets leaving groups, while the other covers group relief share arrangements. Drafts of the clauses covering both

measures were issued earlier this year, and a number of points made in the consultations will be reflected in the final Finance Bill clauses.
Both company group measures are meant to ensure that tax reliefs are available only as Parliament originally intended, and are not expanded in any way unintended by Parliament. But another measure, which corrects a defect in the law on enterprise zones, relaxes the rules where they are currently being interpreted more harshly than was intended. Our intention to legislate on that was announced last December, when we spoke of our intention to introduce changes to the legislation on capital allowances available on enterprise zone buildings.
The provisions included in the Finance Bill will correct a defect in the law, and will relax the rules for purchasers of used buildings. They will also curtail the open-ended nature of the relief, and target it better towards its original aim of short to medium-term regeneration in rundown areas. The balance of the three measures demonstrates that improving the working of the tax system does not always work to the advantage of the tax gatherer. All three will apply from the date of their announcement.
In his Budget speech, the Chancellor announced proposals to close another loophole. Companies were manipulating the business tax rules to defer tax when rent was paid between connected persons. That loophole will be closed with effect from Budget day, and it is covered by resolution 15.
Resolution 19 deals with a tax that has now been abolished, composite rate tax, which was levied on bank and building society interest. Its abolition by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his 1990 Budget means that non-taxpayers can now enjoy their bank and building society savings free of tax. The House will recall that, during debates on last year's Finance Bill, there were extensive discussions about the transitional arrangements in 1985–86 to accommodate a change in the way in which composite rate tax was collected from building societies. The result was that last year's Finance Act confirmed Parliament's original intention.
The new provision, which I announced in a written answer last week, is related to the composite rates set for the four subsequent years. It results from a legal challenge initiated by the Leeds Permanent building society, which argues that the composite rates set for those years have been inadvertently rendered invalid by last year's legislation. Whatever the technical merits of that case—I have to say that the Government are convinced that the rates were legally and validly set—the consequence could be a loss of composite rate tax for four full years. Huge sums of up to £15 billion could be involved. This is tax that has been paid and that has been reflected in the interest paid to investors.
The normal course would be for the Government to wait for the Leeds to test the validity of its actions in the courts, but that could take several years to resolve. In the meantime, there would be doubt and uncertainty over the Government's legal claim to a huge sum of revenue. No one can seriously suggest that it was Parliament's intention that no tax at all should be collected on bank and building society interest for those four years. We have therefore decided to put the matter beyond doubt now by confirming Parliament's original intention in setting the composite rates for the four financial years 1986–87 to


1989–90. As I announced last week, the provision will be retrospective to all composite rate taxpayers, without exception.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I confirm what the Financial Secretary said: that it was Parliament's intention that the composite rate tax should be calculated as it was calculated. What has changed, however, is that retroactive legislation has been passed by this House, without regard to its effect on the composite rate tax. Will the Financial Secretary confirm that what is at issue is not the £15 billion, which the Government collected and virtually all of which they need to keep, but, at the most, 1 per cent. of that, which is £150 million, and probably only half or even a smaller proportion than that?I do not want to anticipate the Finance Bill debates, but I should be obliged if my hon. Friend would confirm that.

Mr. Dorrell: I suspect that we may return to this matter during the passage of the Finance Bill, but I can confirm that my hon. Friend is right to say that the motivation of the Leeds Permanent building society is to draw attention to what it believes to have been an injustice at the time that the transitional arrangements were made. However, what I cannot confirm is that that is the effect of the action that the Leeds Permanent building society has brought. The effect of the action that it has brought, if its arguments were upheld, would be to render invalid the basis upon which composite rate tax was collected for four years. It is a matter of history that, during the four years in question, the yield from composite rate tax was £15 billion.
Finally, among these technical measures, I come to two further proposals that I am announcing today. The first concerns the special tax regime for life assurance companies that goes back to 1915. That regime reflects the fact that most of a life office's investment income will ultimately go to its policyholders. It has always been accepted that the income attributable to policyholders could quite properly be taxed while the company itself made a trading loss.
That view has recently been challenged by two companies. We are advised that the legal underpinning for that long-standing, established practice is less robust than was generally thought. We shall therefore be introducing clauses to correct the law and ensure that it does indeed reflect established and long-standing practice. As it often take some years finally to settle the accounts of insurance companies, the change will be made retrospective, with application to all life assurance companies. Anything less than full retrospection on this point would, I believe, confer unjustifiable and capricious windfall gains on some companies whose accounts remain open, and could cost the Exchequer several hundred million pounds.
The second proposal that I am announcing today arises from a recent decision of the special commissioners. They ruled that payments made under equity notes—which are a form of perpetual debt instrument—were interest for tax purposes. The effect of that ruling is to allow multinational companies to exploit asymmetries between different countries' tax regimes. I am advised that, if no action were taken, there could be a loss to the Exchequer of up to £150 million, a year. The Government therefore propose to bring forward legislation in the forthcoming Finance Bill.
The legislation will have two components. First, it will restore the general understanding of the thin capitalisation provisions of certain double taxation agreements to what it was before the special commissioners' decision. Secondly, it will establish the relevant domestic law to include payments under equity notes in the definition of distributions. The legislation will apply to all payments made from midnight tonight. We believe that some aspects of the special commissioners' ruling are bound to be a departure from previously established practice. Accordingly, the Inland Revenue is seriously considering an appeal against that ruling.
Most of the resolutions before the House today appeared immediately after the Budget, but were withdrawn once the election was announced; but there is one resolution that reflects a new measure announced since the Budget. This is resolution No. 4. It paves the way for changes to the vehicle excise duty exemption for disabled people. These are being made as a result of changes to disability allowances that came into force on 6 April. As announced last week, in future the VED exemption for disabled drivers will be linked to the higher level of the mobility component of the new disability living allowance. That is in line with the previous entitlement, which was linked to mobility allowance.
The Government, however, have decided that it is no longer possible to continue to operate the exemption for disabled passengers. The Bill will therefore repeal it. This is necessary, because the old scheme for disabled passengers has become virtually impossible to administer, given that disability living allowance and attendance allowance are now self-assessed benefits. However, transitional arrangements will ensure that no individual who currently receives it loses the exemption.
The Finance Bill will also contain provisions that will give effect to the proposals announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget to improve tax reliefs for charitable giving. My right hon. Friend proposed to reduce the minimum donation qualifying for tax relief under the gift aid scheme from £600 to £400. He announced that the reduced limit would take effect from 1 July. To speed the benefit to charities and to donors, my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General announced recently that we have decided to bring forward the starting date for these measures to 7 May. I believe that this change will be widely welcomed by charities.
Before concluding, may I take this opportunity to inform the House of developments on one item included in the Budget that will not appear in the Bill, as published, but about which new clauses will be tabled during the passage of the Bill? My right hon. Friend announced his intention to bring forward two measures designed to alleviate the cash flow problems of the film industry. The first would allow film makers relief for pre-production expenditure as it is incurred. The second would allow production expenditure to be written off for tax purposes at a rate of 331/3; per cent. per annum, starting on the completion of the film.
In drafting the details of the legislation it has been necessary to draw on film industry definitions of, for example, pre-production expenses. We have consulted representatives of the industry on the relevant definitions and have received helpful input from them. In addition, I have received representations from the industry on certain aspects of the proposals which I shall want to consider


fully in formulating the legislation. In the circumstances, it has not been possible to complete the drafting of the necessary clauses to appear in the Bill when it is published, but we shall introduce new clauses dealing with those issues during the passage of the Bill.
The resolutions are largely technical but, although some of the material and content may appear dry, the purpose behind them is clear and addresses the real concerns of many millions of people. The Finance Bill that rests on the resolutions will take a stage further the Government's commitment to reduce the tax burden and sharpen incentives and rewards for wealth creation. That is the promise that we made to the electorate on 9 April, and it is a promise that we shall keep. I commend the resolutions to the House.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: This is the first opportunity that I have had, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to welcome you to the Chair and to congratulate you on your appointment. I also congratulate you on your astuteness in arranging to chair part of what is to be a long Finance Bill, but which is at least limited by time.
It is not easy to present these measures as evidence of a renewed and invigorated Government coming to the House with big ideas for the 1990s; and, to his credit, the new Financial Secretary did not try to do that. As ever with the Conservative party, it is not really possible to defend these measures on the ground of social justice; and, to his credit, he did not try to do that either. It is not easy to present these measures as evidence of competent public administration, but, because it is his job to do so, the Financial Secretary did try to do that. I congratulate him on his appointment and welcome him to the Front Bench during the first of what will be many Treasury debates. In the traditional spirit—at least for me—of what are still, regrettably, the Opposition, I want to be as helpful to him as I can. I shall draw his attention to what I think are some of the potentially difficult areas. However, having heard his speech, I think that he has discovered the principal one for himself—resolution 19.
Resolution 19 paves the way for a repeat of last year's composite rate debate. The new Financial Secretary may wonder why it is necessary. He may wonder why the primary legislation of 1985 was not comprehensive enough to cover the areas in dispute. He may wonder why the Inland Revenue got it wrong, at least according to the courts, in the regulations that it issued in 1986. He may wonder why the Government did not deal with the uncertainty by amending legislation, possibly in 1987 or, at the latest, in 1988. He may ask why the legislation that we passed last year was incapable of dealing with certainty with the issue that it was supposed to be addressing, leaving us to address the whole business again this year.
As the Financial Secretary will probably have appreciated by now, the Government could have got the legislation right last year. Had they done so, it would surely be possible for them to rely on the courts to decide the issue safely. I cannot believe that the Minister is telling the House that he has no faith in the British courts or the House of Lords, which gave us the original Woolwich building society judgment. Apart from the rather obvious point about there being £15 billion at stake, the Financial Secretary may well be wondering, quite reasonably, why

and who is responsible. My advice was to be, "Don't ask." However, I see that he has already discovered who told the House:
The attraction of composite rate has always been that it allows small amounts of tax to be collected with ease from very large numbers of people. It is very convenient and very cost-effective".—[Official Report, 20 March 1990; Vol. 169, c. 1025].
The same person then went on to abolish composite rate tax.
As I have said, the Financial Secretary has wisely discovered who it was and my advice is not to emphasise that aspect of the problem. However, perhaps when he is discussing these matters with senior colleagues he could persuade the Prime Minister to revisit his old home on the Committee Corridor when these matters are before the Finance Bill Committee. He could look in on the debate on building society composite rate tax and, feigning surprise, could say "It is still there; it is." Perhaps he could say that with the same amount of conviction he displayed in the first Tory party political broadcast before the election.
I must alert the Financial Secretary to the possibility that the Government could be back next year with a clause to remove these matters from the competence of the courts. The clause could say that the Inland Revenue's interpretation of the legislation is final and has the force of law. The Financial Secretary seems a nice enough person and I hope that he is not the one who has to persuade the House that we should legislate in that way. That is the direction in which this shambles seems to be moving. It is a pathetic and incompetent episode. I fully accept that it is not of the present Financial Secretary's making; he will have his opportunities soon enough.
Resolution 9 paves the way for harmonising—in Britain's case that means reducing—car tax rates across the European Community. The choices before the Government are to forgo the revenue, raise the revenue elsewhere or introduce a new car levy that is not strictly an excise duty to replace the lost revenue. The cut in car tax to 5 per cent. in the Budget may give a clue about the Government's thinking. If that is so, in the reply to the debate, will the Financial Secretary tell us whether we can expect extra taxation elsewhere in the economy or is the effect of this allowed for in the future estimates of the public sector borrowing requirement?
It may be that resolution 5 reveals the way in which the Government intend to recoup the loss implied by resolution 9. Here, the Government's big idea is the sale of personalised car number plates. No doubt grateful junior Ministers have already clubbed together to purchase MAJOR as a present for their boss. Selling registration marks directly is not a bad idea, but it is not a big idea. It is the product of the sort of minds that can come up with the national lottery and a Secretary of State for National Heritage to run it—not the Treasury—but cannot come up with ideas about unemployment, economic growth, manufacturing industry output, the balance of payments deficit and the increasing poverty and homelessness.
The increase in poverty leads me to resolution 10, which paves the way for the consequential provisions following the new 20 per cent. tax band. When abolishing the lower rate band in 1980, Sir Geoffrey Howe told the House that the case for the lower rate band was never clear. Of course, that was after an election, not before.
The Government's claim is that an average single-earner family gains £2.64 per week from the measure. The


fact is that 72p of that £2.64 is due entirely to annual indexation in line with inflation. The 250,000 families who pay tax but also receive family credit lose 70p in benefit for every £1 that they gain in the tax cut. The increases in excise duties that were announced in the same Budget cost the same average single-earner family £1.56 per week. All that leaves a net loss for the low paid of 76p per week.
Nobody can seriously believe that the Conservative party intends to assist the least-well-off; there is too much evidence to the contrary. The Select Committee on Social Services told the House that between 1979 and 1988 the poorest 10 per cent. of households endured a cut of 6.2 per cent. in real terms in their living standards. The study by Professor Townsend of Bristol university found that over the decade between 1979 and 1989 the real annual disposable income of the poorest fifth of households fell by £160. Over the same period the figure for the richest fifth rose by an astonishing £8,000.
The Prime Minister said that he wants a classless society, yet, as Chief Secretary and Chancellor, he presided over the most regressive shift in the tax burden of modern times. In 1979 the poorest 20 per cent. of our fellow citizens paid 30.5 per cent. of their total income in taxes, both direct and indirect. By 1988 the Conservative Government had moved the total tax take from the poorest 20 per cent. of the population from 30.5 per cent. to an obscene 397 per cent. Did they realise the error of their ways in 1988? Did the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury—now the Prime Minister—say that that was not the way to create a classless society? No, he did not. Like the rest of the Cabinet, he supported the poll tax which gave a further twist to the regressive direction of our tax system.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Could not the explanation of the problem be that the Prime Minister does not accept that the problem exists? On "Election Call" on 31 March when that information was put to him, he answered:
I don't accept your statistics
and went on to say that he did not believe that the gap had widened. If the Prime Minister does not accept the facts, is there any chance that the Government will deal with the problem?

Mr. Brown: There is a dislocation between saying that one believes in a classless society and then doing nothing to bring it about. The facts are absolutely overwhelming and many of those to which I am referring are drawn from the Government's own answers to parliamentary questions. It is difficult for the Prime Minister, who is presiding over the Government, to say convincingly that he does not accept the facts that his Ministers are providing for the House.
When we challenged the Government on these issues, they did not defend what they were trying to do in the light of the available evidence. The Treasury ducked, weaved, evaded and did everything but answer parliamentary questions on the distributive effect of the poll tax, but the real effects of a decade and a halls redistribution of the tax burden are clear enough to any Member of Parliament with an inner city constituency. Real cuts in the income of the poorest, combined with long-term withdrawal of

employment opportunities, create the circumstances that we saw on Tyneside last summer. This Finance Bill offers no hope or even change for this summer.
What of the better-off? In 1979, the wealthiest 20 per cent. of our fellow citizens paid 37.6 per cent. of their total income in all taxes, direct and indirect. By 1988, the Conservative party had got that figure down to 34.5 per cent. and was introducing the poll tax to reduce that burden still further by shifting it from the wealthiest 20 per cent. to the rest. Even without the poll tax, by 1988 the wealthiest 20 per cent. of our society were paying less tax as a proportion of their total income than the poorest 20 per cent.—34.5 per cent. for the wealthiest compared with 39.7 per cent. for the poorest. From 1988, the position of the poorest deteriorated further, largely due to the regressive effect of the poll tax.
By 1991, a two-child family on 75 per cent. of average earnings was paying 34.9 per cent. of its income in direct and indirect taxes. There was an increase in the rates and the community charge element from 3.5 per cent. in 1979 to 6.2 per cent. in 1991. No wonder the Treasury was shy at the time and for a substantial period after about releasing those figures.
This Budget and the motions fall to be considered at the end of more than a decade of regressive redistribution of the tax burden. Given that the Government have had two sets of Budget resolutions and two Finance Bills for one Budget and that a parade of Treasury Ministers—old and new—has fought for this Budget in the House, one would have thought that there might be something in it, that there might be an important stepping stone towards a classless society. Not a bit of it. There is nothing for the unemployed, nothing for training, nothing for industry and pitifully little even for small businesses about which the Conservatives say that they care. Most importantly, the financial resolutions offer no comfort to the millions of people whom the Government have pushed into poverty in the past decade.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I congratulate the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) on the way in which he delivered his speech. It was all the more enjoyable to hear because he has an engaging style involving understatement. Had the same style been used during the general election by his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), who speaks for Treasury matters on behalf of the Labour party, the Labour party might not have done so badly. Clearly, one style works within the Labour party and another works across the country.
It might also be a good thing if the Labour party chose its leaders according to what they said and how they said it rather than according to their looks or their forensic debating skills—it might find that more of the country identified with it.

Mrs. Llin Golding: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) is good looking.

Mr. Bottomley: If the hon. Lady starts to make a speech, I might make the same remarks about her, but for the moment I shall concentrate on her hon. Friend.
The resolutions raise a number of issues. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary and the hon. Member for


Newcastle upon Tyne, East referred to the £15 billion covered in—I think—resolution No. 19 which was foreshadowed in a parliamentary answer on 7 May to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns). Before dealing with that, I refer to one or two other issues.
It is worth noting that the casualties of the election included not only Francis Maude but John Maples, whom I hope we shall see back in the House. Although he and I were unable to agree on resolution No. 19, I think that the whole House will recognise that he made a valuable contribution and would be able to do so again if he were to be re-elected. Of course, we may see the same happening with the many members of the Labour party who have returned as retreads. I am sure that many of them will join their party's Front Bench soon, although perhaps not as quickly as one of the Liberal Democrats who seemed to be speaking for his party at Question Time this afternoon in his first week in Parliament.
One important issue to which the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East did not refer was confidence. There is no doubt that there will be a greater air of confidence within the economy and among ordinary households—of whatever level of income—now that the uncertainty of the general election is out of the way. It would be possible for the Conservatives to argue that a Conservative victory will lead to more confidence sooner and that people will put their efforts and talents into new small businesses and into extra education and training in the hope that the rewards will stick with them and with their families.
I do not wish to make too much of a partisan point because I think that, in its review of the consequences of the general election, the new model Labour party will adopt most of the social democratic policies against which it fought—some rather more successfully in the past few weeks than in previous years. In view of the change in the Labour party's constitution and its change in approach, I believe that more Labour hon. Members will speak more clearly on behalf of those who set up their own businesses.
I do not exclude the importance of the industrial and manufacturing sector, but it is in the service sector—whether in retail or other services—that more people take risks with their family prosperity. I believe that the Labour party will speak more clearly for them, and I hope that the Government will also recognise more clearly what an immense burden has been carried in the past three years by people in small business, in the service sector and in retail.
For people whose businesses were built over generations, it was a personal tragedy to have them wiped out as a result of the massive recession. I pay tribute to those who have pulled themselves out of bankruptcy or liquidation and who are willing to have another go. We need to create circumstances in which the rewards for success appear to balance properly the risks of failure. That is where lower levels of taxation, an understanding of the risks that people are bearing and the ways in which taxes are imposed matter. However, with regard to the national insurance and tax system, we should be well advised to continue to ensure that people who owe money pay regularly.
Often, when people get behind, they find that the money that they should have paid to the public authorities has gone elsewhere; when businesses crash, it is even worse. Thus, as with the payment of rent, the community charge, the rates we had or the council tax as it will be, it

is important to have a system whereby people accept their obligations on time. I recommend that the brain boxes at the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise find a way to impose a tax penalty on big businesses which do not pay their bills to sub-contractors on time. An element of self-discipline would be greatly welcomed and would add to the velocity of circulation of money. I am sure that people considering expenditure and inflation will say that we would need to compensate for that, but it would be appreciated by contractors and sub-contractors.
I shall deal with some details, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will forgive me if I do not stick to all the resolutions before us but deal with some of those which might be thought of. One resolution deals with high earners from overseas.
My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary referred to some help to be given to the film industry. There are two problems in the performing arts in that respect. One is that some very high earners—whether stars or producers—are reluctant to make films in this country because of the way in which the tax system works. Without asking for a detailed response from him today, may I suggest that my hon. Friend or some of his colleagues get together with those who are trying to put together projects in order to ascertain the impact.
As a middle income earner, I hesitate to say this, but sometimes, if we give some of the very high earners who are resident or normally work overseas, an apparent or actual better deal to come and perform here or create productions, whether on film or in the theatre, here, we find that more of our people are employed as technicians and in supporting those activities in other ways. If we did that in future, we would again become a centre of production and a centre of excellence for the performing arts—that would be important. Some people in the profession would be able to talk with some authority on the subject, and discussing it with them would be useful.
At the other end of the scale, we have not yet solved the problem of the difficulty and expense caused by the intermittent working patterns when people first come into the performing arts. People trying to earn a living as professional musicians or actors or something similar find themselves moving in and out of their desired employment, which involves expenses not fully recognised by the Inland Revenue. I am not sure whether a problem with VAT would arise, because people would not reach the threshold early. Will consideration be given to that, perhaps in consultation with some of the leaders of the acting profession, especially those involved in the Actors Benevolent Fund, who often have to pick up the pieces? It may be possible to find ways, at relatively low cost, to help people on to the first or second step of the ladder and allow them to carry on in their chosen profession.
If the national lottery and the Department of National Heritage can refurbish many more of the buildings in which people perform, we could find that more people are employed in entertainment, too. Help at the early stages would, of course, help people to become successful and go on paying more tax—which most people are happy to do at the rates that we are now introducing.
I know that the House will have other opportunities to consider the national lottery Bill when it is introduced, but I ask my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary now whether there will be an explanation of where the mythical £1,000 million will come from. We keep hearing that £1,000 million a year in extra money will be available for the arts,


heritage, sport and many other good causes. I do not believe that it is possible for more than one third of the stake money to emerge as good cause money. There will be friction costs, and some return to the prizewinners. I do not see the prizewinners settling for less than one third of what is staked, nor the other elements in the friction costs, such as retail distribution, amounting to less than one third, so we are talking about £3,000 million.
A reasonably high proportion of the money staked on horse racing comes back each time it is staked, so although there may be a turnover of, say, £3,000 million, there is only about £1,000 million of new money each year—at least, there is a multiplication factor; I probably have not got the figures quite right.
In contrast, most of the money won on the national lottery will not be recycled into it but will be used for other purposes. The money which goes to good causes will not be recycled into the national lottery; nor will the friction costs. In effect, if the result is to be £1,000 million, we are talking about an extra £3,000 million being used for this form of spending—to use a neutral word.
We know nothing about the taxation proposals, but most other forms of gaming and gambling carry heavy taxation—the taxation that would have been a feature of a Ways and Means resolution in the past. While the details of the national lottery Bill are being considered, people should come out into the open. I ask my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary whether there will be a clear statement on whether the deadline of 1 June in the White Paper is firm, or whether it is a target and there can be more discussion.
I believe that no one outside the House, and very few people inside, have given serious consideration to the idea of an extra £3,000 million in new gambling. That is roughly equivalent to all current gambling. My fear is not only that shared in Liverpool, with Vernons, Littlewoods and the other football pools people, with their genuine interests and staff interests; it is that we shall see unrestrained gambling and gaming.
There are restrictions on current gambling. For example, the football pools companies cannot use shops or television promotions. I believe that there have been four or five gambling and gaming Acts, all based on the assumption that those activities should satisfy a demand that is there, but should not stimulate more demand. I do not believe that it will be possible to keep the national lottery draw off the television. How can we allow that—and probably advertising for it, too—if we do not allow other forms of gambling and gaming the same facility?
I do not want this country to be seen as the gaming and gambling capital of the world. I do not want to sound too puritan, or Calvinist, but there is common sense in our present approach, which is to make provision for gambling and gaming tables, but not to allow those activities to be stimulated. Too many people would risk too much. I do not wish to go into too much detail now, but there is a series of questions that the Government should answer over the next few weeks.
In passing, I understand that the Home Office gambling and gaming team has not moved to the Department of National Heritage. It is difficult to see a proper distinction or differentiation being made between the responsibilities

of the Home Office team and the team which I am sure is now being created in the Department of National Heritage.
I hope that the Churches and others concerned with social conditions will pay attention to the issues—not because it is necessarily right or proper to block the national lottery Bill, but to try to ensure that issues are considered in advance, rather than our simply finding ourselves with the benefit of the money, but with the "disbenefit" that many people's lives will be wrecked by the temptation of instant success.
I pay tribute to the pools industry for the fact that people in general do not stake large sums on the pools. A very few may win large sums but they do not stake too much. Very few people's lives are made difficult because of the money that they have put on the football pools.

Mr. William Ross: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Churches while he was talking about the national lottery. Perhaps he would encourage his right hon. and hon. Friends in government to take notice of the views of the Churches in the Republic of Ireland.

Mr. Bottomley: My hon. Friend the Minister will have heard that remark. We should retain a focus on the experience of the Republic of Ireland. Some of the promises made there did not turn out to be accurate.

Mr. Barry Porter: My hon. Friend is taking an unusually Cromwellian and gloomy view of people. As we already have a national lottery, called the premium bonds, can he tell us how many people have gone bankrupt as a result of buying those?

Mr. Bottomley: My hon. Friend the Minister will have heard the remarks of the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross). The stake money on premium bonds is available to be paid back. It may be affected by inflation, but as we are now aiming at stable prices, premium bonds may become an even better deal.
Several changes have been made affecting charitable giving. Most have been welcome, and I am sure that others will be suggested. The gift aid schemes and give-as-you-earn schemes need more publicity rather than all those changes in the legislation.
I pay tribute to Mr. Russell Twisk, the editor of the Reader's Digest, who has taken positive action with his colleagues at work, as a result of which a level of giving has been reached under the give-as-you-earn scheme which I doubt can be matched by any other organisation. If more of us were willing to find out how people can come together and give successfully, and to gain charitable donations in new ways, using the tax break system, more of us would give more cheerfully and more often. That would be a good thing.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary would be disappointed if I did not say something about resolution No. 19. As a stepping stone to that, may I say how important it is for us to pay serious attention to social politics. Social conditions need to be improved; people need greater opportunities in their lives. Often it is those whom we do not see in our ordinary lives who need those opportunities most. People need the opportunity to earn —too many people are out of work—and the opportunity for their needs over the family life cycle to be better recognised. People need the chance of better housing.
The building society movement has done as much as local authorities and housing associations over the past 40 years to increase the number of homes available and to improve their condition. We should recognise the role of those who founded the building societies in helping people to create new homes. I hope that now the building societies will turn more of their time and talent towards helping to create more new homes again, rather than simply helping people to buy and sell clean secondhand houses.
It is worth remembering that the way in which the building societies managed to help so much was by getting the savings of so many people. There are between four and 10 savers for every person who borrows. The taxation arrangements made it possible for the societies to expand without there being too much bureaucracy or form-filling for the depositors—the members of the societies.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East gave us a good potted history of the events that have led to resolution No. 19, one of the few resolutions to be introduced since the general election. As my hon. Friend the Minister said, it is clearly a consequence of the Leeds Permanent judicial review. That review has been joined by at least three other building societies that are adversely affected.
That conjoint judicial review is a bad precedent. On tax appeals, it is perfectly reasonable to say that if someone wins an appeal against the intention of the Government or of the Inland Revenue, he should necessarily get the benefit only if he appealed along with the person whose case was heard.
It is a very bad precedent to follow what has happened in the Woolwich case. The Woolwich went ahead with a judicial review. Others did not join in, although the Leeds Permanent, to mention just one, was the first to complain strongly about the use of the 1985 legislation in 1986. The societies shared the same lawyers.
If the Government were going to say, "We are not willing to accept the risk of the Woolwich winning", they should have introduced a resolution similar to resolution No. 19. They should have said, "We are going to knock out your judicial review by primary legislation". I would not have advised that, but I believe that that would have been a more open approach.
To have drawn a distinction between the Woolwich, the Leeds Permanent, the Greenwich and the other societies affected was a mistake which should be reviewed by the Law Officers, and by the legal advisers to the Treasury and to the Inland Revenue. There should be an open statement that from now on, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, those who gain by judicial review should be treated on all fours with each other. If not, we shall find that there is the extra cost of many people going for conjoint judicial reviews, which would be a waste of money and would give too much money to the lawyers.
One per cent. of the £15 billion will be at stake if the Leeds Permanent is successful in the judicial review. Whatever the outcome of resolution No. 19 and whatever the outcome of the Finance Bill, it would be sensible for the Inland Revenue or the Treasury to have discussions with the building societies that are adversely affected to see whether it is possible to draft a resolution which does not put £15 billion at risk and which could tidy away the issue.
Following the point made by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East, no matter how often the Government bring retroactive legislation to the House this is the third time—they cannot achieve the same object

at the higher Court of Appeal. There is a good case for taking the issue to Europe where people can put their experience of extra taxation for a period for which they have already paid tax that satisfied the Revenue.
We had a merry-go-round of legislation and I doubt whether it will stop here. I seriously advise the Government to see whether it is possible to find a way out which will resolve the issue with reasonable rough justice.

Ms. Tessa Jowell: I join other hon. Members in congratulating you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on your appointment. I have been elected to represent Dulwich, a constituency in south London a few miles from here. Within it are extremes of prosperity and poverty which mirror the country as a whole.
Dulwich is principally a residential area. What industry there was has mostly long since gone. Employment, being mainly service-based, has been heavily hit by the recession, and unemployment has increased locally by 99 per cent. since March 1990. One person in six is now out of work, and the fear of unemployment is a fact of life.
Action to end recession, to combat poverty and to see improvements in health care, raise standards in our local schools, the development of nursery education and nursery care, and the regeneration of our inner cities are all policies for which people in Dulwich voted and which led them to elect me as their Labour Member of Parliament and to displace my Conservative predecessor.
I take the opportunity to pay a sincere tribute to Gerald Bowden, who was the Conservative Member for Dulwich until the election. He served my constituents well and conducted the election campaign with dignity and integrity. He earned widespread respect for his active lobby against the rail link, an issue that 1 will continue to pursue along with local groups such as Peckham Against the Rail Link on the sure foundation that he laid.
I also record the debt that Dulwich owes to its previous Labour Member, Sam Silkin, the former Attorney-General, who represented the seat for 19 years until 1979. Local people say about him, "Sam was Dulwich". There was nothing more important to him than the attentive and conscientious care with which he addressed the problems and issues affecting his constituents. That is a fine tradition which I will do my best to follow in my work as the new Member for Dulwich.
I used to work at the Maudsley hospital in Dulwich, where my brief was to re-establish and resettle in the local community people with long-term and chronic mental illness. I want to talk about a very big question for my constituents—how we care for our elderly people, for people with mental illness and for people with disabilities, and how we get the best from community care.
In Dulwich, one person in five is over 65. The number of very elderly people living alone is on the increase. Serious problems are emerging in the local health service on the care of elderly people which arise partly from the loss over the past three years of 52 beds previously provided for elderly people. The closure of those beds has increased pressure for elderly people to be admitted to other beds, generally acute and surgical. The evidence of that pressure exists in the notorious and scandalous queues of people waiting on trolleys in the casualty department of King's College hospital until a bed in the hospital becomes free.
The risks to elderly people are especially great. If they are confused, they may become even more so. There are attendant risks of dehydration, and pressure sores may develop even after a relatively short time lying on a trolley. A wait on a casualty trolley may set back the time of recovery. A longer hospital stay may be caused by the difficulties of the hospital's admission procedure.
Some of the elderly people seeking admission to hospital could be looked after at home if the community services were still available. I spoke recently to an elderly lady who had been waiting for six hours to be admitted to King's and who had been lying on a casualty trolley. She had broken her arm, but she did not really need to be in hospital. However, there was no one to put her to bed at home, so hospital was the only safe alternative. Until a year ago, it would have been possible to get a district nurse to put her to bed, but the service has been cut.
Two Government policies are clashing headlong, and that elderly lady is the victim. The hospital needs to reduce its costs as it prepares to become a trust. That clashes with the other Government policy to provide responsive and individually appropriate care to elderly people in their own homes wherever possible.
If the community care policy is to work properly, elderly people must also have immediate access to the medical treatment they need. That is important if they are to have a real chance of being able to cope in their own homes, even with support. An elderly man is, for example, today waiting in a Dulwich hospital for a hip replacement. He cannot manage at home until his hip is repaired. However, by the time that he has his operation, it is likely that he will be so dependent that he will be unable to manage in his own home. Residential care will be the only alternative.
"Going into a home" and "arranging a residential placement" are bureaucratic carespeak which obscures the personal tragedy which the loss of a home invariably represents. Let us pause for a moment and consider what it means to leave one's home for ever and enter a residential or nursing home, however good the care, however much safer and however unavoidable. It means the loss of freedom to run one's life in the way that one chooses; to make a cup of tea when one wants; to wear the clothes that one wants to wear; to cook one's own choice of food and watch the television programmes that one prefers. Those are the freedoms which we properly take for granted and which define us as individuals. That is why it is so important to make the community care policy work and to understand the impediments to its success.
We will hear a lot during this Session about the need to measure the performance of our public services and about the role of the citizens charter. However, we should not be carried away by the creation of a new science to help us to recognise a good service. The delivery of health and community care should be measured against a simple question: hon. Members, as they take decisions about the care of vulnerable elderly people, should ask themselves whether what they are deciding is what they would want for themselves or for their families. If the answer is that it is not, the policy is unacceptable. That simple test should set our standards for the judgment of effective community care.

Sir Michael Grylls: I congratulate the hon. Member for Dulwich (Ms. Jowell) on her first-class maiden speech, which she delivered with great confidence and fluency. We were much impressed by what she said. Her handsome tribute to Gerald Bowden, the former Member for Dulwich who was a much loved and respected Member of this House, struck a chord with all of us. I hope that she will not take it amiss when I say that I am sure that we all hope to see Gerald Bowden back in this place in the very near future. However, I wish the hon. Lady success in her career, and the House looks forward to hearing from her in future.
There are many excellent measures in the Budget resolutions, and I want to concentrate on the changes in the inheritance tax for private businesses. Although Conservative Governments over the past 10 years have greatly reduced the impact of inheritance tax on privately owned businesses, it was still a penal burden which all too often could result in a business having to be sold or taken over by a larger firm. In such circumstances, that independent small business would cease to exist.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be congratulated on seizing that point and opting for outright abolition. From now on, firms can be passed on intact from one generation to another so that they can grow from one generation to another. When defending the continuation of any form of inheritance tax on privately owned businesses, previous Chancellors, including some Conservative Chancellors, have said that, with proper advice and planning, it was possible to avoid that tax. If the business was handed over within seven years, that tax could be avoided. However, that is the wrong way to consider the issue.
Business decisions that are tax-driven are all too often wrong business decisions. It is wrong to tell entrepreneurs that they can avoid tax if they hire professional tax advisers. It is wonderful that the House is about to abolish that tax and so tell that splendid breed of people from the 1980s—and I am sure from the 1990s as well—who have risked their own capital and effort in building up businesses, employing people and creating wealth, that, when they decide to retire or if they die, the Government will not take a large lump from them in inheritance tax. Those businesses can be continued by future generations of the family or by future generations of the management. They can carry on and expand those businesses.
The alteration to inheritance tax in respect of small businesses is a momentous part of the Budget. Strangely, in the excitement of the general election, it was not a central issue. I guess that a Labour Government would not have pursued that tax change. However, when the Budget is examined in years to come, the abolition of inheritance tax for private firms will, in the context of British entrepreneurship, be seen as an important and historic decision. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will be encouraged by that.
I want to jump a wide gap from referring to the interests of small firms in relation to the Budget to an issue that affects many of our largest companies and international businesses. I must first declare an interest of which the House is aware.
Nearly seven years ago, during the passage of the 1985 Finance Bill, I tried to describe the efforts of the United Kingdom to eliminate the use by certain states in the


United States of unitary taxation as it affected British firms. That involved taxing companies not just on their profits within a particular state, but including that company's worldwide profits and other statistics.
That form of taxation still exists in California. It is internationally criticised and is agreed to be a barrier to trade. We want to remove as many barriers to trade as we possibly can. That form of taxation is also a severe irritant to good international relations. The use of unitary taxation has been condemned internationally by the United Nations, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, the European Community, Japan, Australia, Switzerland and Canada. They have all said that that form of taxation is the wrong way to deal with international business. Even the United States Administration has agreed with that.
The strongest opponent of unitary taxation has been the United Kingdom. Although the House had been patient to a fault, I said in 1985 that it could no longer continue to wring its hands about the issue and hope that something would be done. I said that the time for action had arrived.
As you will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the House decided in 1985 to adopt retaliatory legislation in section 54 of the Finance Act 1985, which is now section 812 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988. I raise the matter today because, seven years after I raised the matter in 1985, I have bad and disappointing news. On Monday, the California supreme court issued an opinion in the Barclays bank case reversing victories obtained in the lower and middle courts. The opinion declared that unitary taxation is constitutional in California.
That news will be a shock to the House and to the Government. Many will say that it is an outrage, and I would agree. It is apparently a very perverse judgment. The House may be surprised to learn that the California supreme court believes that the United States Congress had approved unitary taxation because, although when the Senate originally considered article 9(4) of the United Kingdom/United States double taxation treaty, it failed to pass it by a majority of two thirds, it nevertheless received a clear majority.
The House may be surprised to learn that the California supreme court believes that, when the United States Administration assured Her Majesty's Government that they would use their best endeavours to eliminate the international application of unitary taxation, Congress had already acted to approve the tax. The House may be equally surprised to learn that the California supreme court believes that Congress, by failing to bar the use of unitary taxation, approved the use of such a tax.
I believe that the House will say, of course, that such arguments are nonsense. The California supreme court also believes that only the states of the United States and United States business have an interest in the outcome of the unitary taxation issue. That is profoundly wrong. The court has ignored the real interests of British international firms, which are welcomed in California and other places and are highly successful. It has ignored the real interests of the British Parliament and Her Majesty's Government by refusing to eliminate a method of taxation that is contrary to all internationally accepted principles of taxing profits where a company or group of companies operates internationally.
We can no longer wring our hands and hope that something will happen. I am sure that, with the agreement

of Her Majesty's Opposition, the House will want to urge the Government and the United States Administration to seek an urgent review of the Barclays decision in the United States Supreme Court with no further delay.
You will recall, with your excellent memory, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that, during the 1985 retaliatory debate, the then Financial Secretary, the predecessor to my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell), the right honourable John Moore, asked rhetorically:
have we done enough to impress our friends in the United States the importance which we attach to the unitary issue?" Sadly, tonight the House will say, "Apparently not.
We should send a clear message today that we shall wait no longer, that our patience has finally run out. I ask my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to convey to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor the wish of the House that he introduce at the earliest possible opportunity the retaliatory clauses contained in section 812 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988. Only such action, and no lesser action, will convince the diehards in the United States who wish to cling to such an improper use of taxation, which is so damaging to investment and international trade. It is also damaging to Britain's relations with our great friend and ally the United States.
The role of Her Majesty's Government in taking retaliatory action must be finally to convince the United States Administration that Britain will not tolerate one day longer the continuation of this abominable form of taxation which, as I have said, is so damaging. I believe that the House will agree that it is damaging to international trade and investment and to British business in general.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: May I also welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is the first occasion on which you have called me, but I certainly hope that it will not be the last, in view of the length of the Parliament that stretches ahead of us. The whole House is pleased to see you in the Chair.
I also congratulate the hon. Member for Dulwich (Ms. Jowell) on an excellent maiden speech. It struck a definite chord with me, because my maiden speech nine years ago was on health and community care. The House will welcome her clear expertise on the subject and her obvious commitment to it. Tomorrow I shall have a meeting at one of my psychiatric hospitals which is about to become a trust. I shall be able to report that another Member of Parliament is well able to argue the case. I congratulate her and look forward to many more speeches from her.
I support what the hon. Member for Surrey, North-West (Sir M. Grylls) said. I have signed numerous motions on the issue that he raised. I wholly agree that it has gone on for far too long. The one word that he did not use was "unfair". Unitary taxation is downright unfair. Indeed, if everyone operated that system, world trade and business could grind to a halt. It is preposterous that people should tax the benefits of activities that have taken place halfway round the world and have no connection whatever with the receivers of that tax benefit. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need to press for urgent action on that matter.
By its nature, this is an esoteric debate. I do not even pretend to be qualified in the technical details of some of the resolutions on the Order Paper, but I want to address


several general and specific points. The first resolution is a catch-all to stop us from trying to change the Budget in any fundamental way. But one or two points arise. It is worth going back to the Queen's Speech and asking the Financial Secretary a question. The Queen's Speech says that the Government
will reduce the share of national income taken by the public sector and balance the budget over the medium term, reducing taxes when it is prudent to do so.
How the hell will the Government do that?

Mr. Dorrell: In exactly the same way as we did it through the 1980s.

Mr. Bruce: That does not seem to me to be very likely.

Mr. Dorrell: We did it.

Mr. Bruce: Yes, but in different circumstances from those which the Government now face. The question that I was about to ask—

Mr. Nicholas Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bruce: Give me a minute.
The Government have produced forecasts for the medium-term strategy. Already, over the period 1990 to 1993, forecast repayments of £10 billion, £6 billion and £3 billion have become deficits of £0.5 billion, £14 billion and £28 billion. So over three years, the Government are just £61.5 billion down on their short-term forecast, to say nothing of their long-term forecast.
Indeed, at no time on the horizon can one see the Government achieving a balanced budget in anything that would normally be described as the medium term.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: The Financial Secretary's intervention was revealing. The total tax take from the British economy went up during the 1980s, not down. So the Financial Secretary is effectively announcing further tax increases this evening.

Mr. Bruce: That is a point to which I intend to refer. I freely admit that my speech is somewhat fluid and unstructured, so I can pick a piece out which I intended to come to later.
During the election, I was canvassing in one village in my constituency when I was asked a direct question by a gentleman who said, "I am on disability benefit. That is my only source of income. All this talk about tax cuts—what good is it to me? I do not pay income tax. But I do pay the increase in VAT, poll tax and all the other taxes imposed on me by this Government, who continually claim to cut taxes." For people like that constituent, taxes have done nothing but increase steadily under the Conservative Administration.
Indeed, as the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) said, the disparity between the tax burden on the better-off and that on the less-well-off has widened. The Government should consider how they can address that. A simple political comment is making many of us think, and I hope that it will make the Government think, too. A Government who can be continually re-elected with 42 per cent. of the vote can afford perhaps to ignore the poor and underprivileged, because such people do not have enough votes to defeat the Government.
I hope that the Government will not ignore the poor and will not allow the imbalance to continue. If they do, they will be setting up Britain to become a South American country, where the poor become very much poorer and the rich become very much richer.

Mr. Dorrell: indicated dissent.

Mr. Bruce: The Financial Secretary is shaking his head. I do not suggest that that is the intention of the Government, but they are setting objectives in terms of political promises to the people who elect them which can be paid for only by squeezing the people who do not. It is high time that we sought to secure some cross-party consensus to address the problem of people such as my constituent and ensure that they do not face continuing reductions in their real standard of living, given that it is much lower than the average across the country.
It is unfortunate, perhaps, that resolution 1 will prevent us from introducing one or two pieces of "mischief" that might discipline the Government. They have failed to predict and manage the public sector borrowing requirement, and £60.5 billion is a monumental discrepancy. Perhaps we should set a target for what the Government think the PSBR is and introduce a requirement that, if they overshoot it, they undertake to raise the difference by increasing taxation or cutting services. That would impose a sharp discipline on all Government Departments to be more accurate in their forecasting and more close in their management and acceptance of responsibility for the state of the economy.
Businesses in Scotland, and especially small ones, feel that it is unjust that they have to pay £450 million more in business rates than they would pay if they were taxed on the same basis as businesses in England and Wales. I have already raised this matter with the Minister in an intervention, and I shall certainly take it up with Scottish Office Ministers. The Government have said that they are prepared to eliminate the discrepancy, but they have not said how long that will take. The measures that they have introduced suggest that the process is more likely to take 15 years than the lifetime of this Parliament. I ask the Government to give themselves a much shorter and sharper target and provide Scottish business with the chance to compete on an equal footing with businesses in England and Wales.
I shall raise a legitimate and important issue that I take up in all Budget debates. I shall continue pressing it until there is a response from the Government. I make what I consider to be a legitimate plea on behalf of the Scotch Whisky Association. The unique character of Scotch whisky is that it has, by law, to be matured for three years before it can be marketed as Scotch. I have been told on numerous occasions that this piece of legislation was requested by the industry because it wanted to secure the quality of Scotch and its distinctive character and maturity. It was requested, however, in 1913, and those who requested it are probably all now dead. The industry should be given the chance to engage in a reassessment.
Scotch whisky constitutes one of our major export industries. It is an important employer, especially in the more remote rural areas of Scotland. It is important also, of course, in some urban areas, where there are substantial bottling plants. The industry is at a definite disadvantage compared with its counterparts which produce other spirits in the United Kingdom or, more importantly,


produce them elsewhere in Europe. Its request is that it should be able to have tax relief on the statutory requirement to stock whole for three years.
The problem arose with the abolition of stock relief some years ago. Governments never admit publicly to mistakes of this sort, but I am assured that, when the then Chancellor of the Exchequer abolished stock relief, he did not realise the implications for the Scotch whisky industry. Ministers must know now, because the message is brought home to them every year. There are serious implications, and it is a matter of genuine concern. I believe that it is a legitimate interest, and I hope that Ministers will take it on board. Were it not for resolution 1, I would he motivated to table an amendment to the Finance Bill.
Do the Government have real control over the direction of the economy? Is the rather spurious accuracy of Budget figures anything more than a fantasy or fairy tale that reflects what the Government hope will happen rather than a solid belief? The figures are based on the presumption that there will be a 3.5 per cent. growth rate per annum, and I do not know many independent commentators who have the confidence to believe that that is likely to be achieved. I hope, of course, that it is achieved. I have no desire to see anything other than success for the recovery of the economy. At the moment, however, ministerial speeches do not create wealth, and the wealth-creation process suggests that the target, which is necessary for the fulfilment of the Government's budget, is not being reached.
There is a relationship with the unemployment figures. Unemployment has increased by 29,000, and the total is 2.7 million. I have been my party's employment spokesman in the past, and today I went the round of the studios with the shadow employment spokesman. We tried to find some new adjectives to describe the situation but it is difficult to make interesting and original comments on the monthly figures. It is clear that unemployment of 2.7 million is causing a great deal of misery for many families. It is not good enough to ignore those people because they are not part of the 42 per cent. who voted for the Conservative party. I know that some of them did vote Conservative, but heaven knows why.

Mr. Dorrell: They did so because they want jobs.

Mr. Bruce: They want jobs, but they have not been successful in obtaining them. In a way, that is neither here nor there. People are entitled to vote for any party according to their own judgment.
Unemployment is a tragedy and a waste for those who find themselves in that position. More to the point, it is a tragedy and a waste for the entire community. Those who are employed should be outraged at having to carry the burden of the many who are not. It is estimated that each unemployed worker costs the Exchequer £8,900 a year. If it were possible to reduce unemployment by I million—at 1.7 million, it would still be high—we would be able to generate £9 billion of revenue. Far be it from me to cross the Floor and determine the Government's priorities, but I would point out that the Government's objective is a standard rate of income tax of 20 per cent. If 1 million fewer people were unemployed, they would be able to achieve that at a stroke. Yet there is no evidence that the Government have the necessary will or imagination to set the necessary target.
I would have liked to see measures in the Budget designed to stimulate real jobs in new areas and new industries. We heard this morning that a royal ordnance factory in Lancashire is to shed 450 employees. We all accept that the peace dividend means substantial cuts in defence spending with consequential job losses, but it must be borne in mind that it is an employment area of high skill and high technology, and that traditionally it has a high export value. If we no longer have a need for its specific products, we surely have a need for the skills and capabilities of its employees and for the revenue that they could produce. We must find ways of reorienting and retraining them.
It is a matter of beating swords into ploughshares in modern, high-tech terms. We must try to ensure that the technical capabilities of the defence industry are introduced into new areas, so that skills are not lost and wasted and export opportunities are made secure. I would like to believe that the Government would accept that they have some responsibility to do that. The tax mechanism may be a useful component for introducing imaginative ways of stimulating special investment, long-term investment, research and export opportunities in areas where there is new growth. Perhaps there could be training support for those who have skills but need to be reoriented.

Sir Michael Grylls: Perhaps I should not intervene, having only just resumed my place, but 1 wish to say that the hon. Gentleman is on to an important point. As he has said, it is essential that firms in the defence industry switch to civil work. If the hon. Gentleman studies the record of the past two years, he will learn that this is beginning to happen. Much more of the turnover of British Aerospace, Lucas and other large companies is in civil work.
I part company with the hon. Gentleman when he says that there is an active role or pro-active role for Government. It would be better to keep corporation tax as low as possible and leave it to the brains, skill and entrepreneurial expertise of those who are responsible for firms in the defence industry to seek out new markets in the civilian sector. When Governments have tried to intervene, they have not been very successful.

Mr. Bruce: The hon. Gentleman may be surprised to hear that I do not disagree with anything that he has said. I was not suggesting that the Government should step in and act; I was suggesting that the Government should consider ways of ensuring that the private sector effort is given an extra spin by giving it some short-term additional tax incentive, tax relief or training boost to enable it to pick up the opportunities and make the switch more quickly than would otherwise be the case. I was not suggesting that the Government should say what the switch should be or second-guess the markets. We are at one on that issue. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman intervened to give me a chance to explain that.
I have tried to link my points to my concern that the Government are not in control and do not know what is happening. They are on a wing and a prayer, and are well out of touch with their own forecasts. I have suggested how they might achieve their targets.
I remain puzzled by the argument for the reduced 20 per cent. rate band. I will not dig out the papers now, but I have here endless speeches from Conservative Ministers saying that it was a daft idea, which was why it was


abolished in 1981. It is not efficient at delivering its objective, which is to help the low-paid. [Interruption.] If the Minister is saying that that was a Liberal idea, I accept that, too. Every party has tried and opposed the suggestion on different occasions. I make no virtue of that. This is not suddenly a bright and consistent idea.
The reduced 20 per cent. rate band is not the most efficient way of simplifying the tax system, which is one of the Government's objectives. It adds complexity. Some people estimate that it would mean 800 extra staff; the Chief Secretary to the Treasury estimates 300 extra staff. It is not as effective as raising thresholds and targeting benefits, which would help to narrow the differentials that the Government have succeeded in widening over the years.
I accept that to some extent the Government are committed to the band. We have had an election, they have won and they must go ahead with it. However, I hope that they will give real thought to how they can simplify and structure the tax system in a way which provides incentives, but not at the expense of the very poor and the low-paid. I hope that the Government try to strike a balance between stimulating business and achieving social justice.
That should be the aspiration of the entire House, regardless of one's political base. It would be best if we got out of this ideological conflict and genuinely tried to find ways of achieving that more balanced result. Clearly, this Budget will not do that because of the Government's commitments, but I hope that the next one will.

Mr. John Austin-Walker: I, too, congratulate you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on your election to your office.
My immediate predecessor had a reputation in the constituency as a hard-working constituency Member of Parliament. I hope to follow in that tradition as the representative for Woolwich.
As the new Member for Woolwich, it is impossible for me to stand in this Chamber without a sense of history. When I first moved to Woolwich in 1966, Plumstead school was at the bottom of my garden, which is now in the constituency of the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley). On the wall there was a plaque which said that on that spot Mr. William Ewart Gladstone had made his last speech to his Greenwich constituents. I doubt whether many Members of the House can claim to have had a speech made by a Prime Minister at the bottom of their garden.
Outside the Chamber there is a bust of another of my predecessors. Younger residents of Woolwich may know of Ernest Bevin only as the name on one of the Woolwich ferries. Parliamentarians will probably remember him as one of our great Foreign Secretaries. I prefer to remember him for his origins and trade unionism: born into poverty, often hungry and admitting that he sometimes had to steal for food as a young boy, he permanently identified with those whose experience had been the same as his. It has been said of him that
unlike many self-made men of the Victorian age he never had any wish to climb out of his own class. He preferred, instead, to help it to rise and to rise with it.

In 1908 Ernie Bevin led the Right to Work movement. Given the absence of any reference in the Gracious Speech to the problems of unemployment, perhaps now is the appropriate time to relaunch that movement.
Unemployment in Woolwich and Eltham has risen 170 per cent. over the past year and more than 400 per cent. since 1979, with an overall unemployment rate for the constituency of Woolwich approaching 25 per cent. Around the town centre the level of adult male unemployment is 40 per cent. and in the Arsenal ward it is a staggering 60 per cent., the highest in London. The lack of any measures to redress that situation in the Government's programme is deeply distressing both for those already unemployed and for the many more in Woolwich who fear for their jobs and security.
Young people face the most difficulty and poorest prospects. The unemployment figures reveal the complete failure of the Government's training policies. Although the Government claim to give the highest priority to helping young people who have been out of work for more than six months, it is precisely in that group where the rise in unemployment has been highest. In the borough of Greenwich 790 people under 18 are registered, available and looking for a training place. There are currently 12 vacancies. Unemployment is costing the country more than £20 billion a year—money which could and should be invested in our schools, hospitals, public transport and training.
Woolwich has been particularly hard hit by the decline in jobs in manufacturing industries and the lack of training and skills opportunities for young people. London has the lowest percentage of apprenticeships in the country and the skills shortage will soon become apparent, if and when the recovery begins. Figures for economic performance published in January by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) show that Woolwich and Newham, North-East are the hardest hit constituencies in London. Woolwich needs policies that recognise the need to rebuild our manufacturing base and offer opportunities for young people in training and education.
Of the 10 most deprived wards in Greater London, three are in and around Woolwich town centre. For 300 years the area was the home of and provided labour for the Royal Arsenal. At one time the arsenal employed 80,000 people and was the largest single factory in the United Kingdom. If ever there were an example of where the skills of people in the defence industry have been lost because of a lack of provision for retraining, it is Woolwich. The number employed in the arsenal today is down to 1,300 and those jobs are shortly to go.
The 300-year-old role of the arsenal as a huge primary industrial production centre has come to an end, but tremendous opportunities can be realised with Government help. The closure of the last remnants of the arsenal will release 75 acres of development land in the town centre. The arsenal site contains an extraordinary heritage of buildings of international significance, at least one by Vanbrugh. Yet the Ministry of Defence has allowed many to fall into such a state of dilapidation and decay that an estimated £60 million may be needed for basic restoration of those historic buildings which have lain hidden from public view behind the arsenal wall. That any property owner could allow such a heritage to fall into disrepair is a tragedy; for the Government to have done so is a crime. I invite the Secretaries of State for Defence, for


the Environment and for National Heritage to visit the site as a matter of urgency and to accept responsibility for the restoration and refurbishment of those buildings.
I welcome the commitment in the Queen's Speech to combat crime, but any attempt to combat crime must start from an understanding of its causes. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), in his eloquent speech on Thursday, warned of the grave risk of a social explosion. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) reinforced that point today in his opening speech. Poverty and deprivation, alienation and hopelessness are the breeding ground for crime and provide an environment in which racism can thrive.
The Woolwich constituency includes most of Thamesmead, which is shared with the constituency of the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett). Thamesmead shot into national prominence a year ago, following a brutal racist murder. Just over the boundary in the neighbouring borough of Bexley are the national headquarters of the British National party, masquerading as a book shop and in contravention of planning regulations. Bexley council, however, chooses to give comfort to racists by ignoring its presence and refusing to use its enforcement powers. The British National party churns out its racist literature and occasionally the police seize some of it, but the Attorney-General has so far failed to act.
Some people ask why we should make such a fuss about a small and insignificant bunch of freaks. But they are not so small and insignificant if one is black and lives in Woolwich, Plumstead, Erith, Belvedere or Thamesmead and is subjected daily to harassment, abuse, attacks on one's property and sometimes physical violence. I shall continue to draw the attention of the House to that threat, not only to the black citizens in my constituency but to our democracy and the freedom of us all.
If we are to tackle racism seriously, the law must be strengthened and racial harassment made a specific offence. More needs to be done to reform the procedures, systems and structures that perpetuate indirect discrimination and institutional racism. In employment, we need tighter and more effective legislation along the lines of the fair employment legislation in Northern Ireland.
Health care is another area of concern in Woolwich. The Brook hospital serves Woolwich. Its emergency unit is threatened with closure and the hospital's long-term future is in doubt. My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Ms. Jowell) spoke eloquently about community care. As a former chair of the Association of Community Health Councils and a past chair of Greenwich MIND, I share her concern about the quality of community care. We need high-quality care, not services on the cheap provided often with reliance on low-paid or unpaid carers.
Increasingly, the burden of community care is being carried by relatives, usually women, often with no financial or emotional support. For those without relatives, being discharged from institutions often means the exchange of one institution for another—out of hospital and into the institution of poverty and isolation.
As chair of the all-party London Ecology Committee, I am disappointed by the Government's lack of commitment to environmental protection. The Prime Minister has expressed concern about tropical forests, yet his Government are prepared to drive an urban motorway, the east London river crossing, through Oxleas Wood in Woolwich, an 8,000-year-old ancient woodland and site of

special scientific interest. In so doing, they are prepared to ignore the European environmental protection legislation to which the United Kingdom is a signatory.
I have spoken of the need for full employment to be at the top of the political agenda. Those employment policies must include a commitment to equal opportunities. I fully support the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) that free or affordable child care is an essential pre-requisite for equal opportunities in employment. I refer not only to care for the under-fives; the absence of child care beyond the age of five is also a barrier to many women seeking employment.
Regarding equal opportunity, I was pleased to be here on that historic occasion when we elected the first woman to hold the office of Speaker. That came about because of the past struggle of many women, with the support of a few men. One of those few men was another of my predecessors, Will Crooks, who was elected the Member for Woolwich in 1903. He campaigned for equal rights and first moved a Bill in the House in 1903 for the enfranchisement of women.
Will Crooks went from the workhouse to Westminster, but never deserted the ranks from which he came. In the words of his biographer, he continued to stand four square with the working classes against monopoly and privilege. He achieved a spectacular victory in Woolwich in the 1903 by-election, a result described by the Speaker of the day as the greatest by-election victory of modern times. His victory was followed by the election of Labour candidates in several parts of the country in the election of 1906, when it was said:
This is the party that was born in Woolwich.
I have a proud history to follow.
In his maiden speech, Will Crooks asked to be forgiven for being controversial. He spoke out, in that 1903 speech, against the privatisation of defence contracts and criticised the unfair way in which contracting procedures favoured private contractors over the Government's own services. In the same way today, local authority direct service organisations are at a disadvantage compared with private contractors under the current compulsory competitive tendering arrangements.
Will Crooks apologised to the House for breaking with precedent by speaking out on an issue of concern to his constituents. I make no such apology. If I had failed to speak out on the very issues that are concerning my constituents, I would have had to apologise to them. I thank the House for its tolerance, but I assure hon. Members that, although the needs of Woolwich may have been overlooked by the Government, its voice will not go unheard in this Chamber.

Mr. Peter Mandelson: It is my pleasure to commend my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) on an excellent maiden speech. He demonstrated tremendous experience and knowledge, qualities that will enable him to make many more valued contributions to the House in the future. I only hope that I am able to acquit myself as ably as he has done.
In representing Hartlepool, I have the honour of succeeding Ted Leadbitter, who was as popular in the House as he was admired in his constituency. Ted Leadbitter was first elected in 1964. Supported by his wife


Irene and his indomitable agent, Mrs. Elsie Reed, he lost no time in demonstrating his diligence and, equally, his independence.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who was Postmaster-General at the time, describes in his ministerial diaries for 10 February 1965—when the Labour Government had a majority of only three—how a new hon. Member, Ted Leadbitter from West Hartlepool, had written to complain about a telegraph pole being put up in front of a constituent's home. Refusing to be fobbed off with some bureaucratic response, the MP of three months' standing rang up my right hon. Friend's office with the message:
Mr. Leadbitter regards the Postmaster-General's reply as so rude and evasive that he does not propose to come to the House or to accept the Labour whip until the answer is withdrawn and the pole is removed.
The pole was duly removed. I am sure that hon. Members can agree that in such important matters—to parody Edmund Burke—I, too, should be a representative of my constituents, not a delegate of my party. I can reassure the Whips, however, that I am not aware—at present at any rate—of any misplaced telephone poles in Hartlepool.
Ted Leadbitter's predecessor, the first Labour Member to be elected for the constituency, in 1945, was David Jones. A man who knew poverty and unemployment at first hand, Mr. Jones dedicated himself to freeing his constituents from the appalling social conditions of the time, "the evil days", as he called them, of ill-health, poor housing and insecurity in old age. David Jones' memory is particularly special to me because he was a friend of my grandfather when he was a Member of this House, and he spoke for David Jones at several elections.
When they took their seats, my predecessors took pride in representing the two Hartlepools. While I represent only one in name, I am conscious of the fierce community loyalties in both Hartlepool and West Hartlepool. Even before the two Hartlepools were each denied their own borough status, music hall references celebrated the local demand for home rule. In the review of local government to which the Conservative party is committed, the minimum that would be acceptable to current residents is the restoration of full unitary authority status to Hartlepool. I shall continue the work of my predecessor in supporting that change.
Hartlepool's great strength is that it rightly sees itself as a community, with shared needs, strongly felt local loyalties and a sense of common purpose and civic pride. That pride is especially strong now. Our football team, Hartlepool United, is at its highest ever league position in the history of the club; the West Hartlepool Rugby Football Club has gained promotion this season to national division one; and first-class cricket has arrived in the town, with the selection of the town's club as a venue for Durham county cricket.
However, there are serious challenges to be faced by my town. Fifty years ago, Hartlepool, like other towns, even with its social problems, was at least more industrially secure because of the success of its shipyards, engineering, steel-making and manufacturing. The task of the coming decade, as we approach the 21st century, is to transform a now industrially poorer and less confident Hartlepool into the thriving industrial community of the future that it can

become. That is why the people of Hartlepool are now embarking on an era of change. They do so in the knowledge that it is not possible for any community or town—or, indeed, political party—to try to recreate the future in the image of the past.
For the first time, in the general election, the Labour party in Hartlepool received more than 50 per cent. of the popular vote. It was a vote to embrace change but it is still change for the same purpose now as it was 50 years ago: to use the power of the community, acting together, to improve the individual circumstances of all. Central to that process is a modern economic policy; new ways of revitalising industry; innovative solutions to the problems created by social change; and sustaining economic growth in ways that are friendly to the environment.
My aim is to see new opportunities created for my constituents so that the confidence and optimism experienced in former times can be enjoyed once again by old and young alike. New opportunities do not mean opt-out schools and opt-out hospitals. When the services of thousands of patients opt out and the local hospital ceases to feel like the local community hospital, when thousands opt out of schools and the local schools cease to be like local community schools, the foundation on which the community is based is being removed.
What is true for our public services is also true, although in a different way, for industry. We cannot rebuild the industrial strength of our nation when manufacturing investment fell by 13 per cent. last year and is still falling now. When apprenticeships are axed and young school leavers fail to find training places, when firms are denied the chance to adapt to new skills and technology, we are eliminating the means by which depleted communities can become strong again.
The local training and enterprise council has seen a 20 per cent. Government cut in its training budget this year. At a time of rising unemployment, is that any way to restore industrial strength to our country? The result of that short-termism is both to deprive our young people of the opportunity that they need to get on in life and to deprive the nation of talent and ability of its people, which is critical to its future success.
When the Conservative party changed its leader and softened its rhetoric, the promise was of a classless society, a nation at ease with itself and opportunity for all. But what hope is there for the young person without a job due to the recession, without training due to cuts in funding, and without benefit due to the actions of a Social Security Minister who is now Prime Minister?
What opportunity is there for the thousands in my constituency and the millions in this country, struggling in poverty and living on the margins of our society? What ease is there in the mind of anyone, in or out of work, if our industrial base, and, therefore, our economic future, lies untended and in neglect?
In truth, there cannot be hope, or opportunity or ease unless we all accept our responsibility to help create them and, in doing so, realise that this benefits us all. Yet when we examine the Government's economic policy we find that urgency and responsibility absent. In large part, that is because the Government cannot break free from their past. The days of reliance on some invisible hand of the market are as discredited as those of centralised planning and the command economy. We need a new partnership between the public sector, the business community and the Government, based not on dogma but on co-operation to


secure objectives in the interests of the economy as a whole. The principle of co-operation is more relevant than ever, even if we must look to different ways and new methods to fulfill that principle.
Let me stress that the townspeople whom I represent are looking for neither handouts nor subsidies from Government. They have never deluded themselves that the man in Whitehall knows best. In the absence of a Government willing to back the scale of investment in new skills and technology which we need in Hartlepool, the town has not sat back. Over the past decade, the local authority has worked tirelessly to bring in new employment, in both the service and industrial sectors. Indeed, even with the drastically reduced help available from central Government, the partnership between public and private sector has achieved much.
The new marina, being built with the backing of Teesside development corporation and the borough council, is a symbol of the town's efforts at recovery, even if it has not brought the employment that many hoped for. It has, however, helped to draw to the town the new Imperial War Museum located in the north, and I hope that that exciting project will receive the Government's full support. The marina will also enable the town to play host to the Round Britain yacht race this summer.
Hartlepool has made a powerful bid for the Department of the Environment's city challenge programme, and if it is successful, as I earnestly hope it will be, it will further help to transform the appearance and economic potential of Hartlepool's central locations.
All those initiatives show how willing we and similar communities are to work with any opportunities opened up to us. But imagine how much more successful the industrious people of Hartlepool would be with a Government committed to re-skilling the work force and actively supporting our local industrial effort. That co-operation is needed now.
Hartlepool and the whole of the north face immense competitive challenges: the savage nature of the current recession; the creation this year of the single European market; and the completion, in a few years, of the channel tunnel. If we fail to invest now, we cannot meet those future challenges.
In rhetoric, the Government accept that case. But they should also realise that to will the ends without willing the means is, as Tawney said, akin to inviting unwelcome guests to dinner in the certain knowledge that circumstances will prevent them from being able to attend. What Hartlepool and the north-east desperately need is not another cynical invitation to share in the nation's fortune, only to find that no place is set for it at the table. In the 1990s we need a decade of regeneration—in industry, our public services and our social cohesion. We can achieve that, but only if we recognise the size of the task to be done and the utter necessity of working together as a nation to achieve it.
Those values of partnership, co-operation and social justice represent all that is best in the Labour party, as true today as ever. It will be my privilege to advance those values on behalf of my constituents and my party throughout my time in this House.

7 pm

Mr. Nicholas Brown: I welcome you to the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, and congratulate you on your elevation to office.
There have been three absolutely first-rate maiden speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Dulwich (Ms. Jowell), for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) and for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson). Each had something warm to say about his or her immediate and previous predecessors. Each of them—and it cannot be mere coincidence—had something to say about unemployment and its attendant problems.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich emphasised the importance of community care issues. Of course, her remarks struck a chord with Labour Members, and I hope that they also struck a chord with Conservative Members. I have never heard the case put as well and as effectively.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich also struck a chord with Labour Members when he spoke about unemployment in the defence industries. It especially struck a chord with me because Newcastle upon Tyne, East has similar problems with the decline of an employment base that is very much related to defence industries. It is tragic to see a major employer, which once employed 80,000 people, being steadily diminished, without the Government intervening to help to provide new jobs. As a public representative, I find it hard to preside over that. It is clear that the electorate of Woolwich realised the need to put into office someone who cared about the problem and who had a solution to it. I am confident that that is why they elected my hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool made a point that is well known throughout the northern region —that no other region has done more to help itself through the difficulties of the 1980s. My hon. Friend rightly praised the efforts of local people and institutions.
My hon. Friend quoted what I thought to be a rather dangerous anecdote about his predecessor, Ted Leadbitter. Indeed, I even thought that he was quoting it with approval. I am not sure that it is right for an hon. Member to quote with approval the behaviour of a predecessor who, when he was a new Member, held the Government—who had a majority of only three—to ransom just to get a telegraph pole removed. If in future there are more telegraph poles that need removing, I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to arrange that through gentle persuasion rather than through the blunt methods of his predecessor.
I and many other Members of the northern group of Labour Members often used to join Ted Leadbitter for a drink in the bar. Without casting any aspersions on his willingness to get in his round, I hope that it is one area in which my hon. Friend will not emulate his predecessor.
The hon. Member for Surrey, North-West (Sir M. Grylls) raised an important matter about unitary tax, although it was slightly wide of the motion. It is right that I say on behalf of the Labour party that the outcome of Monday's court case in California is very serious indeed. I want to make it absolutely clear that there is no distinction between the view of the Government and that of the Opposition on this matter. We are at one. I realise that the Financial Secretary and the Chancellor will need time to reflect on how best to proceed, but it is clear that


the only way to get a resolution of this issue is to get the whole case in front of the Supreme Court in the United States.
If the Californian judgment means that to do that will be difficult or will be unduly or even substantially delayed, as I suspect it means, after reflecting on the matter the Government will need to make representations to our friends in the federal Administration of the United States. The double taxation treaty is supposed to exist between our two countries and we cannot continue to allow it effectively to be flouted by the Californian state government. It is sad that the Californian court system appears to be backing its state government because of domestic pressures rather than upholding international law.
The motions before us relate to the tax regime for this financial year. I regret that there is nothing in them to deal with the essentially regressive nature of the present tax system; nor is there any acknowledgement of the plight of the poor. Every Labour speaker tonight has called for such an acknowledgement. The poorest 10 per cent. of households spend 45 per cent. of their gross income on tax. The richest 10 per cent. of households spend 32.7 per cent. of their gross income on tax.
The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) asked about the percentage of income spent on tax by the poorest households. I can give him the figures. The average household income for the poorest 10 per cent. is £4,081 a year. The total tax take from that sum is £1,835. Very little of that, just £40, is income tax. That is not because those people are all members of the royal family or that they are all too rich to pay income tax because they are professionally advised; it is because they are too poor to pay income tax. However, they are not so poor that they did not have to pay the rates and the successor poll tax. They are not so poor that they can get out of paying Excise duties, VAT or television licence fees. All those sums of money are part of the tax burden and they bear down more heavily on the poor than they do on the better off.
Those households also have to pay their gas bills—to help pay Mr. Robert Evans his 21.4 per cent. salary increase, which takes him to an annual salary of £340,000. That one person receives the equivalent of the income of 83 households drawn from the poorest 10 per cent. of our citizens. Not for nothing have gas charges risen by 167.7 per cent. between 1979 and 1991, compared with a retail prices index rise of 135.4 per cent. Today's truculent announcement of a price cut hardly makes amends for that obscenity in the gas industry.
It is because of those issues of injustice that people look to the Government—a Government who proclaim a commitment to the classless society—for help. If they look to the Government for deeds, what is reflected in these financial motions—rather than their words—proves that they look in vain.

Mr. Dorrell: I echo the congratulations of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) to his three hon. Friends who made their maiden speeches this afternoon. They were all good and interesting speeches. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Dulwich (Ms. Jowell) for her kind words about her predecessor,

Gerald Bowden, who is a longstanding friend of mine. I understand that one of the Treasury Parliamentary Private Secretaries was his constituency chairman before being elected, so I hope that there will be a continuing relationship between the Treasury and Gerald. I also hope that he will find his way back to this House in the not-too-distant future.
The hon. Lady spoke of the importance of community reprovision at the Maudsley hospital. She will know that until only a month ago I was the Minister with responsibility for mental health services. I endorse every word that she said about the importance of an effective reprovision programme out of traditional mental illness institutions. She is quite right to place stress, in the successful discharge of that policy, on properly planned and managed community health care and social care services. I have said many times that I think that it is one of the great challenges facing health service managers. While I do not endorse everything that she said, I warmly endorse what she said about the importance of a proper community-based reprovision programme for people suffering from mental illness and learning disability and for the elderly.
The hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) paid a tribute, at least in passing, to John Cartwright. Not all Conservative Members would number him among our close friends, but we always listened with respect to what he had to say. The hon. Gentleman then gave us a Cook's tour of what he saw as the problems in his constituency, which he alleged that the Government were not interested in. He listed jobs, crime, the health service and the environment. I waited for the issue on which he would be able to demonstrate lack of interest by those on the Treasury Bench. Although he will not agree with me, in my view he did not discharge the burden of proof in the way that he needed to in order to support his assertions.
The hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) was not in the Chamber when the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) was recounting the story of the exploits of Ted Leadbitter when he first arrived in the House. However, as a former Whip—a member of the Broederbond—I shall ensure that the remarks of the hon. Member for Hartlepool are drawn to the attention of the hon. Member for Jarrow. As I was speaking earlier in the debate, I was conscious of the hon. Member for Hartlepool as a brooding presence under the Gallery. I wondered whether he would offer me some sartorial advice, or suggestions on how to improve the presentation of my case. I also wondered whether, if he had sat on the Government Benches, I would have survived at all.
The hon. Member for Hartlepool said—I think that I quote him accurately—that one should not
try to recreate the future in the image of the past.
I entirely agree. I wish that in what he went on to say about schools, hospitals and businesses in his Hartlepool constituency he had followed his own advice. Perhaps the best advice that I can give him is to have the courage of his convictions and ensure that we do not
try to recreate the future in the image of the past.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) asked about resolution 9. The changes envisaged in the resolution are about the system for collecting car taxes, not the tax rate, and there are, I am advised, no Community proposals for the harmonisation of car tax.
The hon. Gentleman twitted me about composite rate tax and my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr.


Bottomley) came back to the subject, as I thought that he might. I can only repeat what I said in an intervention in my hon. Friend's speech. The key point about the Leeds case is that, whatever the motivation of the managers in bringing the case, if their arguments were sustained in court, the effect would not be to reopen the transitional arrangements argument which we conducted and concluded in the House last year. Instead, it would render invalid the basis on which composite rate tax was collected for four financial years, to the tune of £15 billion. It was to put that question beyond doubt that I announced last week that we intend to introduce certain clauses in the Finance Bill.
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham about the importance of building society managers seeking opportunities to finance not merely the purchase of houses but the development and building of imaginative housing schemes. I think that he will agree that building societies already play a part in that, and it is a part which is to be welcomed.
My hon. Friend suggested that we should take action to bring into line the payment patterns of big companies when they meet their obligations to their creditors. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor had to say on that subject in his Budget speech. My right hon. Friend said that the Government were proposing a three-pronged attack on the timely payment of bills. He said:
First, the Government propose to require larger companies to state in their annual report and accounts how quickly they pay. Second, my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor will be proposing simpler procedures in small claims and debt recovery cases.
Third, I want to see the Government's good record on the payment of bills extended to firms which win Government contracts. From next month, those successfully negotiating a contract with a Government Department will be required to include clauses in their own contracts with subcontractors which provide for the prompt payment of bills".—[Official Report, 10 March 1992; Vol. 205, c. 753.]
I hope that that goes some way to answering my hon. Friend's point.
My hon. Friend also stressed the importance that he places on ensuring that the tax regime is benign towards internationally mobile high earners. I also attach importance to that perspective of the tax system. While I am not sure whether, in my time as Financial Secretary, I shall be able to meet every one of his expectations, I am not blind to the point that he makes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, North-West (Sir M. Grylls) stressed the importance for entrepreneurs of the Budget proposals substantially to release business assets from the effects of inheritance tax, and I entirely endorse everything that he said. He then went on to a theme about which, as he said, he had spoken many times in the House—the effect of American unitary tax practice, particularly in California.
If my hon. Friend searches the records, he will find that I am a signatory of at least one and perhaps more than one early-day motion that he has promoted as he has argued this case in the House. Unlike some of the early-day motions that Back Benchers sign and come to regret when they later have to explain the strength of the Government's case from the Dispatch Box, that is not a signature that I regret. I am pleased to have signed the early-day motion and to have this opportunity now to carry through the policy that lies behind it.
My hon. Friend is right to express disappointment at the ruling of the Californian supreme court. The Government agree with my hon. Friend's argument that the basis on which the Californian legal system seeks to collect tax does not fit in with the international taxation of business. That has been the Government's view for some years. I am pleased that it is also the Opposition's view. It is also, as my hon. Friend will know, the view of the United States Government. Both the British and the American Governments have made clear their support for litigation in the American system to overturn those provisions. The American Government have submitted an opinion to the court setting out their opposition to the provisions that are operated in California.
My hon. Friend asked for early implementation of the penal provisions put into legislation in 1985. The time is not right for me to announce today that we shall use those provisions, but I assure my hon. Friend that we do not regard them merely as an ornament on our statute book.
The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) put to the House a question posed to him by a man who asked, "What good is an income tax cut to me, on disability allowance?" That question goes to the heart of the strategy of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. A similar question was posed by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East who asked, "What is the big idea'?" My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham answered both questions when he reminded the House of the importance of low marginal rates of direct tax, given that the first priority is the promotion of wealth creation.
It is by stressing the importance of sharp incentives and an effective system of rewards for those who take risks and commit themselves to extra effort that Governments get a free economy moving. That is the strategy which the Government have pursued consistently, and it has delivered results.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I do not disagree with the point that the Financial Secretary is making, but he is deliberately trying to combine two issues. Yes, taxation can be used to stimulate investment and provide incentives; but that does not answer another question. Why must those on the lowest incomes be further squeezed to finance such incentives?

Mr. Dorrell: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to develop my argument for a moment? He asked what the man on disablility allowance had to gain from a system that stressed low marginal rates of direct tax. The answer is this. If, by establishing a tax system that is friendly to incentives and therefore friendly to wealth creation, we build a more successful economy, we have a better economic base from which to draw the resources that are necessary for the welfare state that we all want.
In stressing the existence of a gap, the Opposition constantly pick up the wrong issue. The real issue is the question of the living standards of everyone in the country, including those at the bottom of the income scale. Opposition Members should consider the effect of the policies that we pursued during the 1980s on the man on average earnings, rather than the activities of the bond dealers—essential though they no doubt are in terms of fancy commissions in the City. After 13 years of Conservative government, the man on average earnings was 39 per cent. better off in regard to real-terms take-home pay than he was in 1979. Between 1974 and


1979, the man's take-home pay rose by 1 per cent. in real terms. Between 1979 and 1992, it rose by 39 per cent.—by £78 a week, for the benefit of those who prefer real today-money figures.
That is the quantum of the success of the Government's approach to managing the economy: a success measured not in terms of fancy commissions for well-paid people, but in terms of the man on average earnings living in the constituency of the hon. Member for Hartlepool, that of the hon. Member for Dulwich or that of the hon. Member for Woolwich. That is the principle which we sought to follow throughout the 1980s, and we shall follow it again in the 1990s. It delivered results before, and it will deliver them again.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That it is expedient to amend the law with respect to the National Debt and the public revenue and to make further provision in connection with finance; but this Resolution does not extend to the making of any amendment with respect to value added tax so as to provide—

(a) for zero-rating or exempting any supply;
(b) for refunding any amount of tax;
(c) for varying the rate of that tax otherwise than in relation to all supplies and importations; or
(d) for relief other than relief applying to goods of whatever description or services of whatever description.

MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 50 ( Ways and Means Motions), to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the further motions, which were made by Mr. Stephen Dorrell.

2. TOBACCO PRODUCTS (RETAIL PRICE OF CIGARETTES)

Motion made, and Question put,
That provision may be made amending section 5 of the Tobacco Products Duty Act 1979.

The House divided: Ayes 247, Noes 25.

Division No. 5]
[7.24 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Butler, Peter


Alexander, Richard
Butterfill, John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)


Amess, David
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Ancram, Michael
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Arbuthnot, James
Carrington, Matthew


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Carttiss, Michael


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Cash, William


Ashby, David
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Chaplin, Mrs Judith


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Chapman, Sydney


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Clappison, James


Bates, Michael
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Bendall, Vivian
Coe, Sebastian


Beresford, Sir Paul
Colvin, Michael


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Congdon, David


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Conway, Derek


Body, Sir Richard
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Booth, Hartley
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Boswell, Tim
Cormack, Patrick


Bottomley, Peter
Couchman, James


Bowis, John
Cran, James


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Brandreth, Gyles
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Brazier, Julian
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bright, Graham
Deva, Niranjan


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Devlin, Tim


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Dorrell, Stephen


Burns, Simon
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Burt, Alistair
Dover, Den





Duncan, Alan
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Lidington, David


Dunn, Bob
Lightbown, David


Dykes, Hugh
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Eggar, Tim
Lord, Michael


Elletson, Harold
Luff, Peter


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lynne, Ms Liz


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
MacKay, Andrew


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Maclean, David


Evennett, David
Madel, David


Faber, David
Maitland, Lady Olga


Fabricant, Michael
Malone, Gerald


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Mans, Keith


Fishburn, John Dudley
Marland, Paul


Forman, Nigel
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Forth, Eric
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Fox, Dr Liam
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Fox, Sir Marcus
Merchant, Piers


Freeman, Roger
Milligan, Stephen


Gale, Roger
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Gallie, Philip
Monro, Sir Hector


Gardiner, Sir George
Moss, Malcolm


Garnier, Edward
Nelson, Anthony


Gill, Christopher
Neubert, Sir Michael


Gillan, Cheryl
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Norris, Steve


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Gorst, John
Ottaway, Richard


Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)
Page, Richard


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Pawsey, James


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Pickles, Eric


Grylls, Sir Michael
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hanley, Jeremy
Rathbone, Tim


Hannam, Sir John
Redwood, John


Hargreaves, Andrew
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Harris, David
Richards, Rod


Haselhurst, Alan
Riddick, Graham


Hawkins, Nicholas
Robathan, Andrew


Hawksley, Warren
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Heald, Oliver
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Hendry, Charles
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Sackville, Tom


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dtord)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Howell, Ralph (Worth Norfolk)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Shersby, Michael


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Sims, Roger


Hunter, Andrew
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Jack, Michael
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Jenkin, Bernard
Soames, Nicholas


Jessel, Toby
Spencer, Sir Derek


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Jones, Robert B. (W H'f'rdshire)
Spink, Dr Robert


Kirkhope, Timothy
Spring, Richard


Knapman, Roger
Sproat, Iain


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Steen, Anthony


Knox, David
Stephen, Michael


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Stewart, Allan


Lait, Ms Jacqui
Streeter, Gary


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Sweeney, Walter


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Sykes, John


Lawrence, Ivan
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Legg, Barry
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Leigh, Edward
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)






Temple-Morris, Peter
Wheeler, Sir John


Thomason, Roy
Whittingdale, John


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Widdecombe, Ann


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wilkinson, John


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'xl'yh'ath)
Willetts, David


Tredinnick, David
Wilshire, David


Trend, Michael
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Twinn, Dr Ian
Wolfson, Mark


Viggers, Peter
Wood, Timothy


Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Yeo, Tim


Walden, George



Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Waller, Gary
Mr. Irvine Patnick and


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Mr. Nicholas Baker.


Waterson, Nigel



NOES


Ainger, Nicholas
Morgan, Rhodri


Allen, Graham
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Anderson, Ms Janet
Pike, Peter L.


Austin-Walker, John
Pope, Greg


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Cambell-Savours, D. N.
Sedgemore, Brian


Cohen, Harry
Skinner, Dennis


Cummings, John
Spearing, Nigel


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Spellar, John


Dixon, Don
Wareing, Robert N


Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)



Golding, Mrs Llin
Tellers for the Noes:


Gordon, Mildred
Mr. Harry Barnes and


Mackinlay, Andrew
Mr. Bob Cryer.


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Question accordingly agreed to.

3. VEHICLES EXCISE DUTY (GOODS VEHICLES)

Motion made, and Question put,
That provision may be made in relation to vehicles excise duty in respect of goods vehicles:—

The House divided: Ayes 242, Noes 17.

Division No. 6]
[7.35 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Alexander, Richard
Carrington, Matthew


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Carttiss, Michael


Amess, David
Cash, William


Ancram, Michael
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Arbuthnot, James
Chaplin, Mrs Judith


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Chapman, Sydney


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Clappison, James


Ashby, David
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Coe, Sebastian


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Colvin, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Congdon, David


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Conway, Derek


Bates, Michael
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Bendall, Vivian
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Cran, James


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Body, Sir Richard
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Booth, Hartley
Deva, Niranjan


Boswell, Tim
Devlin, Tim


Bottomley, Peter
Dorrell, Stephen


Bowis, John
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Dover, Den


Brandreth, Gyles
Duncan, Alan


Brazier, Julian
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Bright, Graham
Dunn, Bob


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Dykes, Hugh


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Eggar, Tim


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Elletson, Harold


Burns, Simon
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Burt, Alistair
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Butler, Peter
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Butterfill, John
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Evennett, David


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Faber, David





Fabricant, Michael
Mans, Keith


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Marland, Paul


Fishburn, John Dudley
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Forman, Nigel
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Forth, Eric
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Fox, Dr Liam
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Fox, Sir Marcus
Merchant, Piers


Freeman, Roger
Milligan, Stephen


Gale, Roger
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Gallie, Philip
Monro, Sir Hector


Gardiner, Sir George
Moss, Malcolm


Garnier, Edward
Nelson, Anthony


Gill, Christopher
Neubert, Sir Michael


Gillan, Ms Cheryl
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Norris, Steve


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Gorst, John
Ottaway, Richard


Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)
Page, Richard


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Pawsey, James


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Pickles, Eric


Grylls, Sir Michael
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hampson, Dr Keith
Powell, William (Corby)


Hanley, Jeremy
Rathbone, Tim


Hannam, Sir John
Redwood, John


Hargreaves, Andrew
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Harris, David
Richards, Rod


Haselhurst, Alan
Riddick, Graham


Hawkins, Nicholas
Robathan, Andrew


Hawksley, Warren
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Heald, Oliver
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Hendry, Charles
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Sackville, Tom


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Shersby, Michael


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Sims, Roger


Hunter, Andrew
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Jack, Michael
Soames, Nicholas


Jenkin, Bernard
Spencer, Sir Derek


Jessel, Toby
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Spink, Dr Robert


Jones, Robert B. (W H'f'rdshire)
Spring, Richard


Kirkhope, Timothy
Sproat, Iain


Knapman, Roger
Squire, Ms Rachel (D'mline W)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Steen, Anthony


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Stephen, Michael


Knox, David
Stewart, Allan


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Streeter, Gary


Lait, Ms Jacqui
Sweeney, Walter


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Sykes, John


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Lawrence, Ivan
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Legg, Barry
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Leigh, Edward
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Temple-Morris, Peter


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Thomason, Roy


Lidington, David
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Lightbown, David
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'xl'yh'ath)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Trend, Michael


Lord, Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Luff, Peter
Viggers, Peter


Lynne, Ms Liz
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Walden, George


MacKay, Andrew
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Maclean, David
Waller, Gary


Maitland, Lady Olga
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Malone, Gerald
Waterson, Nigel






Wheeler, Sir John
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Whittingdale, John
Yeo, Tim


Widdecombe, Ann



Wilkinson, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Willetts, David
Mr. Irvine Patrick and


Wilshire, David
Mr. Timothy Wood.


NOES


Allen, Graham
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Bermingham, Gerald
Sedgemore, Brian


Cummings, John
Skinner, Dennis


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Spearing, Nigel


Dixon, Don
Spellar, John


Golding, Mrs Llin
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Gordon, Mildred



Mackinlay, Andrew
Tellers for the Noes:


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Mr. Harry Barnes and


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Mr. Bob Cryer.


Pike, Peter L.

Question accordingly agreed to.

4. VEHICLES EXCISE DUTY (DISABLED PERSONS)

Motion made, and Question put,
That section 7 of the Finance Act 1971, and section 7(2C) and (2D) of the Vehicles (Excise) Act 1971, may be repealed.

The House divided: Ayes 232, Noes 15.

Division No. 7]
[7.46 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Alexander, Richard
Cran, James


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Amess, David
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Ancram, Michael
Deva, Niranjan


Arbuthnot, James
Devlin, Tim


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Dorrell, Stephen


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Ashby, David
Dover, Den


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Duncan, Alan


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Dunn, Bob


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Dykes, Hugh


Bates, Michael
Eggar, Tim


Bendall, Vivian
Elletson, Harold


Beresford, Sir Paul
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Booth, Hartley
Evennett, David


Boswell, Tim
Faber, David


Bowis, John
Fabricant, Michael


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Brandreth, Gyles
Fishburn, John Dudley


Brazier, Julian
Forman, Nigel


Bright, Graham
Forth, Eric


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Fox, Dr Liam


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Fox, Sir Marcus


Burns, Simon
Freeman, Roger


Burt, Alistair
Gale, Roger


Butler, Peter
Gallie, Philip


Butterfill, John
Gardiner, Sir George


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Garnier, Edward


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Gill, Christopher


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gillan, Ms Cheryl


Carrington, Matthew
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Carttiss, Michael
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Cash, William
Gorst, John


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)


Chaplin, Mrs Judith
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Chapman, Sydney
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Clappison, James
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Grylls, Sir Michael


Coe, Sebastian
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie


Colvin, Michael
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Congdon, David
Hanley, Jeremy


Conway, Derek
Hannam, Sir John


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hargreaves, Andrew


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Harris, David





Haselhurst, Alan
Rathbone, Tim


Hawkins, Nicholas
Redwood, John


Hawksley, Warren
Richards, Rod


Heald, Oliver
Riddick, Graham


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Robathan, Andrew


Hendry, Charles
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Sackville, Tom


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hunter, Andrew
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Jack, Michael
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Jenkin, Bernard
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Jessel, Toby
Shersby, Michael


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Sims, Roger


Jones, Robert B. (W H'f'rdshire)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Kirkhope, Timothy
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Knapman, Roger
Soames, Nicholas


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Spicer, Sir James (Worscs)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Knox, David
Spink, Dr Robert


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Spring, Richard


Lait, Ms Jacqui
Squire, Ms Rachel (D'mline W)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lawrence, Ivan
Steen, Anthony


Legg, Barry
Stephen, Michael


Leigh, Edward
Stewart, John


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Streeter, Gary


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Sweeney, Walter


Lidington, David
Sykes, John


Lightbown, David
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Lord, Michael
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend)


Luff, Peter
Temple-Morris, Peter


MacKay, Andrew
Thomason, Roy


Maclean, David
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Malone, Gerald
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'xl'yh'ath)


Mans, Keith
Trend, Michael


Marland, Paul
Twinn, Dr Ian


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Viggers, Peter


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon Williaim


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Walden, George


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Merchant, Piers
Waller, Gary


Milligan, Stephen
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Waterson, Nigel


Monro, Sir Hector
Wheeler, Sir John


Moss, Malcolm
Whittingdale, John


Nelson, Anthony
Widdecombe, Ann


Neubert, Sir Michael
Wilkinson, John


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Willetts, David


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Wilshire, David


Norris, Steve
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Ottaway, Richard
Wolfson, Mark


Page, Richard
Wood, Timothy


Patten, Rt Hon John
Yeo, Tim


Pawsey, James



Pickles, Eric
Tellers for the Ayes:


Porter, David (Waveney)
Mr. Robert G. Hughes and


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Mr. Irvine Patnick.


Powell, William (Corby)



NOES


Allen, Graham
Sedgemore, Brian


Austin-Walker, John
Skinner, Dennis


Cox, Tom
Spellar, John


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Wicks, Malcolm H


Dixon, Don
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Golding, Mrs Llin



Mackinlay, Andrew
Tellers for the Noes:


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Mr. Harry Barnes and


Pike, Peter L.
Mr. Bob Cryer.


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Question accordingly agreed to.

5. VEHICLES EXCISE DUTY (REGISTRATION MARKS)

Motion made, and Question put,
That provision may be made—

(a) with respect to the fees and other sums payable in connection with the grant or acquisition of a right under section 11 or 12 of the Finance Act 1989; and
(b) for the payment of fees, payable into the Consolidated Fund, in connection with the extension of the period for any such right.

The House divided: Ayes 227, Noes 17.

Division No. 8]
[7.57 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Alexander, Richard
Evennett, David


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Faber, David


Amess, David
Fabricant, Michael


Ancram, Michael
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Fishburn, John Dudley


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Forman, Nigel


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Forth, Eric


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Foster, Donald (Bath)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Bates, Michael
Fox, Dr Liam


Bendall, Vivian
Fox, Sir Marcus


Beresford, Sir Paul
Freeman, Roger


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gale, Roger


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Gallie, Philip


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gardiner, Sir George


Booth, Hartley
Garnier, Edward


Boswell, Tim
Gill, Christopher


Bowis, John
Gillan, Cheryl


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Brandreth, Gyles
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Brazier, Julian
Gorst, John


Bright, Graham
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Burns, Simon
Grylls, Sir Michael


Burt, Alistair
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie


Butler, Peter
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Butterfill, John
Hanley, Jeremy


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hannam, Sir John


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hargreaves, Andrew


Carrington, Matthew
Harris, David


Carttiss, Michael
Haselhurst, Alan


Cash, William
Hawkins, Nicholas


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hawksley, Warren


Chaplin, Mrs Judith
Heald, Oliver


Chapman, Sydney
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clappison, James
Hendry, Charles


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Coe, Sebastian
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Colvin, Michael
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Congdon, David
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Conway, Derek
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Cran, James
Hunter, Andrew


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jack, Michael


Deva, Niranjan
Jenkin, Bernard


Devlin, Tim
Jessel, Toby


Dorrell, Stephen
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jones, Robert B. (W H'f'rdshire)


Dover, Den
Knapman, Roger


Duncan, Alan
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Dunn, Bob
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Dykes, Hugh
Knox, David


Eggar, Tim
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Elletson, Harold
Lait, Ms Jacqui


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Legg, Barry





Leigh, Edward
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lidington, David
Shersby, Michael


Lightbown, David
Sims, Roger


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lord, Michael
Soames, Nicholas


Luff, Peter
Spencer, Sir Derek


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


MacKay, Andrew
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Maclean, David
Spink, Dr Robert


Maitland, Lady Olga
Spring, Richard


Malone, Gerald
Squire, Ms Rachel (D'mline W)


Mans, Keith
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Marland, Paul
Steen, Anthony


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Stephen, Michael


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Stewart, Allan


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Streeter, Gary


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Sweeney, Walter


Merchant, Piers
Sykes, John


Milligan, Stephen
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Monro, Sir Hector
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Moss, Malcolm
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Nelson, Anthony
Temple-Morris, Peter


Neubert, Sir Michael
Thomason, Roy


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Norris, Steve
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'xl'yh'ath)


Ottaway, Richard
Trend, Michael


Page, Richard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Patten, Rt Hon John
Viggers, Peter


Pawsey, James
Walden, George


Pickles, Eric
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Waller, Gary


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Powell, William (Corby)
Waterson, Nigel


Rathbone, Tim
Wheeler, Sir John


Redwood, John
Whittingdale, John


Richards, Rod
Widdecombe, Ann


Riddick, Graham
Wilkinson, John


Robathan, Andrew
Willetts, David


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Wilshire, David


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Wolfson, Mark


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Wood, Timothy


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Yeo, Tim


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard



Sackville, Tom
Tellers for the Ayes:


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Mr. Robert G. Hughes and


Shaw, David (Dover)
Mr. Irvine Patrick.


NOES


Allen, Graham
Skinner, Dennis


Cox, Tom
Spearing, Nigel


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Spellar, John


Dixon, Don
Wicks, Malcolm H


Golding, Mrs Llin
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Hutton, John
Worthington, Tony


Mackinlay, Andrew



Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Tellers for the Noes:


Pike, Peter L.
Mr. Harry Barnes and


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Mr. Bob Cryer.


Sedgemore, Brian

Question accordingly agreed to.

6. EXCISE DUTIES (GENERAL)

Resolved,
That provision may be made, in relation to duties of excise on goods, for fixing the time at which a requirement to pay duty is to take effect and the time as at which the rate of duty is to be determined and for specifying the persons on whom the liability to pay duty is to fall.

7. PERSONAL RELIEFS FOR PERSONS ENTERING THE UNITED KINGDOM

Resolved,


That provision may be made amending section 13 of the Customs and Excise Duties (General Reliefs) Act 1979 with respect to the conditions subject to which reliefs may be conferred under that section.

8. VALUE ADDED TAX (ABOLITION OF FISCAL FRONTIERS ETC.)

Resolved,
That, for the purpose of giving effect to requirements of the directive of the Council of the European Communities dated 17th May 1977 No. 77/388/EEC and to the amendments of that directive by the directive of that Council dated 16th December 1991 No. 91/680/EEC—

(a) provision may be made for value added tax to cease to be charged on the importation of goods from other member States and to be charged, instead, on the acquisition in the United Kingdom of goods from another member State; and
(b) provision may be made amending enactments relating to value added tax on supplies or importations.

9. CAR TAX (ABOLITION OF FISCAL FRONTIERS)

Resolved,
That provision may be made amending the Car Tax Act 1983 in connection with the abolition of fiscal frontiers between member States of the European Communities.

10. INCOME TAX (LOWER RATE: CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISION)

Motion made, and Question put,
That provision may be made for the year 1992–93 and subsequent years of assessment in consequence of the introduction of the lower rate of income tax.

The House divided: Ayes 221, Noes 19.

Division No 9]
[8–08pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Coe, Sebastian


Alexander, Richard
Colvin, Michael


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Congdon, David


Amess, David
Conway, Derek


Ancram, Michael
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Arbuthnot, James
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Cran, James


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Deva, Niranjan


Bates, Michael
Devlin, Tim


Bendall, Vivian
Dorrell, Stephen


Beresford, Sir Paul
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Dover, Den


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Duncan, Alan


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Booth, Hartley
Dunn, Bob


Boswell, Tim
Dykes, Hugh


Bowis, John
Eggar, Tim


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Elletson, Harold


Brandreth, Gyles
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Brazier, Julian
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Bright, Graham
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Evennett, David


Burns, Simon
Faber, David


Burt, Alistair
Fabricant, Michael


Butler, Peter
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Butterfill, John
Fishburn, John Dudley


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Forman, Nigel


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Carrington, Matthew
Forth, Eric


Carttiss, Michael
Foster, Donald (Bath)


Cash, William
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Fox, Dr Liam


Chaplin, Mrs Judith
Freeman, Roger


Chapman, Sydney
Gale, Roger


Clappison, James
Gallie, Philip


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Gardiner, Sir George





Garnier, Edward
Norris, Steve


Gill, Christopher
Ottaway, Richard


Gillan, Ms Cheryl
Page, Richard


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Patten, Rt Hon John


Gorst, John
Pawsey, James


Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)
Pickles, Eric


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Powell, William (Corby)


Grylls, Sir Michael
Redwood, John


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie
Richards, Rod


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Riddick, Graham


Hampson, Dr Keith
Robathan, Andrew


Hannam, Sir John
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Hargreaves, Andrew
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Harris, David
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Haselhurst, Alan
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Hawkins, Nicholas
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Hawksley, Warren
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Heald, Oliver
Sackville, Tom


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hendry, Charles
Shaw, David (Dover)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Shersby, Michael


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Sims, Roger


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Hunter, Andrew
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Jack, Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Jenkin, Bernard
Spink, Dr Robert


Jessel, Toby
Spring, Richard


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Jones, Robert B. (W H'f'rdshire)
Steen, Anthony


Knapman, Roger
Stephen, Michael


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Stewart, Allan


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Streeter, Gary


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Sweeney, Walter


Knox, David
Sykes, John


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Lait, Ms Jacqui
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Legg, Barry
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Leigh, Edward
Temple-Morris, Peter


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Thomason, Roy


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Lidington, David
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Lightbown, David
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'xl'yh'ath)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Trend, Michael


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Lord, Michael
Viggers, Peter


Luff, Peter
Walden, George


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


MacKay, Andrew
Wallace, James


Maclean, David
Waller, Gary


Maitland, Lady Olga
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Malone, Gerald
Waterson, Nigel


Mans, Keith
Wheeler, Sir John


Marland, Paul
Whittingdale, John


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Widdecombe, Ann


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Wilkinson, John


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Willetts, David


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Wilshire, David


Merchant, Piers
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Milligan, Stephen
Wolfson, Mark


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Wood, Timothy


Monro, Sir Hector
Yeo, Tim


Moss, Malcolm



Nelson, Anthony
Tellers for the Ayes:


Neubert, Sir Michael
Mr. Irvine Patnick and


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Mr. Nicholas Baker.


Nicholson, David (Taunton)



NOES


Allen, Graham
Golding, Mrs Llin


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Gordon, Mildred


Cox, Tom
Hutton, John


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Dixon, Don
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)






Pike, Peter L.
Wise, Audrey


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Worthington, Tony


Skinner, Dennis



Spearing, Nigel
Tellers for the Noes:


Spellar, John
Mr. Harry Barnes and


Wareing, Robert N
Mr. Bob Cryer.


Wicks, Malcolm

Question accordingly agreed to.

11. CORPORATION TAX

(CHARGE AND RATE FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 1992)

Resolved,
That corporation tax shall he charged for the financial year 1992 at the rate of 33 per cent.

12. CORPORATION TAX (SMALL COMPANIES: 1992)

Resolved,
That for the financial year 1992—

(a) the small companies' rate shall be 25 per cent., and
(b) the fraction mentioned in section 13(2) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 shall he one fiftieth.

13. GROUP RELIEF ETC.

Resolved,
That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made amending Schedule 18 to the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.

14. COMPANIES CEASING TO BE MEMBERS OF GROUPS

Motion made, and Question put,
That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made about companies ceasing to be members of groups.

The House divided: Ayes 217, Noes 16.

Division No. 10]
[8–20 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Colvin, Michael


Alexander, Richard
Congdon, David


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Conway, Derek


Amess, David
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Ancram, Michael
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Arbuthnot, James
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Cran, James


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Deva, Niranjan


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Devlin, Tim


Bates, Michael
Dorrell, Stephen


Bendall, Vivian
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Beresford, Sir Paul
Dover, Den


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Duncan, Alan


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Body, Sir Richard
Dunn, Bob


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dykes, Hugh


Booth, Hartley
Eggar, Tim


Boswell, Tim
Elletson, Harold


Bowis, John
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Brandreth, Gyles
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Brazier, Julian
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Bright, Graham
Evennett, David


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Faber, David


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Fabricant, Michael


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Burns, Simon
Fishburn, John Dudley


Burt, Alistair
Forman, Nigel


Butterfill, John
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Forth, Eric


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Foster, Donald (Bath)


Carrington, Matthew
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Carttiss, Michael
Fox, Dr Liam


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Freeman, Roger


Chaplin, Mrs Judith
Gale, Roger


Clappison, James
Gallie. Philip


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Gardiner, Sir George


Coe, Sebastian
Garnier, Edward





Gill, Christopher
Norris, Steve


Gillan, Ms Cheryl
Ottaway, Richard


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Page, Richard


Gorst, John
Patnick, Irvine


Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Pawsey, James


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Pickles, Eric


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Grylls, Sir Michael
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie
Redwood, John


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Richards, Rod


Hampson, Dr Keith
Riddick, Graham


Hannam, Sir John
Robathan, Andrew


Hargreaves, Andrew
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Harris, David
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Haselhurst, Alan
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Hawkins, Nicholas
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Hawksley, Warren
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Heald, Oliver
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Sackville, Tom


Hendry, Charles
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Shersby, Michael


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Sims, Roger


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Hunter, Andrew
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Jack, Michael
Spink, Dr Robert


Jenkin, Bernard
Spring, Richard


Jessel, Toby
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Steen, Anthony


Jones, Robert B. (W H'f'rdshire)
Stephen, Michael


Knapman, Roger
Stewart, John


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Streeter, Gary


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Sweeney, Walter


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Sykes, John


Knox, David
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Lait, Ms Jacqui
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Legg, Barry
Thomason, Roy


Leigh, Edward
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Lidington, David
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'xl'yh'ath)


Lightbown, David
Trend, Michael


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Twinn, Dr Ian


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Viggers, Peter


Lord, Michael
Walden, George


Luff, Peter
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Wallace, James


MacKay, Andrew
Waller, Gary


Maclean, David
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Waterson, Nigel


Malone, Gerald
Wheeler, Sir John


Mans, Keith
Whittingdale, John


Marland, Paul
Widdecombe, Ann


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Wilkinson, John


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Willetts, David


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Wilshire, David


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Merchant, Piers
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Milligan, Stephen
Wolfson, Mark


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Wood, Timothy


Monro, Sir Hector
Yeo, Tim


Moss, Malcolm



Nelson, Anthony
Tellers for the Ayes:


Neubert, Sir Michael
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Mr. Robert G. Hughes.


Nicholson, David (Taunton)



NOES


Allen, Graham
Golding, Mrs Llin


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hutton, John


Cox, Tom
Mandelson, Peter


Cryer, Bob
Pike, Peter L.


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Dixon, Don
Spearing, Nigel






Spellar, John



Wareing, Robert N.
Tellers for the Noes:


Wise, Mrs Audrey
Mr. Harry Barnes and


Worthington, Tony
Mr. Dennis Skinner.

Question accordingly agreed to.

15. RENTS OR RECEIPTS BETWEEN CONNECTED PERSONS

Motion made, and Question put,
That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made about rents or receipts payable to a person who is connected either with the person by whom they are payable or with another person who makes payments in respect of the same land.

The House divided: Ayes 215, Noes 15.

Division No. 11]
[8.30 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Alexander, Richard
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Evennett, David


Amess, David
Faber, David


Ancram, Michael
Fabricant, Michael


Arbuthnot, James
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Fishburn, John Dudley


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Forman, Nigel


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Forth, Eric


Bates, Michael
Foster, Donald (Bath)


Bendall, Vivian
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Beresford, Sir Paul
Fox, Dr Liam


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Freeman, Roger


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Gale, Roger


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gallie, Philip


Booth, Hartley
Gardiner, Sir George


Boswell, Tim
Garnier, Edward


Bowis, John
Gill, Christopher


Brandreth, Gyles
Gillan, Ms Cheryl


Brazier, Julian
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bright, Graham
Gorst, John


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Greenway, Harry (Eating N)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Burns, Simon
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Burt, Alistair
Grylls, Sir Michael


Butterfill, John
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Carrington, Matthew
Hannam, Sir John


Carttiss, Michael
Harris, David


Cash, William
Haselhurst, Alan


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hawkins, Nicholas


Chaplin, Mrs Judith
Hawksley, Warren


Chapman, Sydney
Heald, Oliver


Clappison, James
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hendry, Charles


Coe, Sebastian
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Colvin, Michael
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Congdon, David
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Conway, Derek
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cran, James
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Hunter, Andrew


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Deva, Niranjan
Jack, Michael


Devlin, Tim
Jenkin, Bernard


Dorrell, Stephen
Jessel, Toby


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dover, Den
Jones, Robert B. (W H'f'rdshire)


Duncan, Alan
Knapman, Roger


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Dunn, Bob
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Dykes, Hugh
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Eggar, Tim
Knox, David


Elletson, Harold
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lait, Ms Jacqui


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian





Legg, Barry
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Leigh, Edward
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lidington, David
Shersby, Michael


Lightbown, David
Sims, Roger


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lord, Michael
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Luff, Peter
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Spink, Dr Robert


MacKay, Andrew
Spring, Richard


Maclean, David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Maitland, Lady Olga
Steen, Anthony


Malone, Gerald
Stephen, Michael


Mans, Keith
Stewart, Allan


Marland, Paul
Streeter, Gary


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Sweeney, Walter


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Sykes, John


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Merchant, Piers
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Milligan, Stephen
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Thomason, Roy


Monro, Sir Hector
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Moss, Malcolm
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Nelson, Anthony
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'xl'yh'ath)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Trend, Michael


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Viggers, Peter


Norris, Steve
Walden, George


Ottaway, Richard
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Page, Richard
Waller, Gary


Patnick, Irvine
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Patten, Rt Hon John
Waterson, Nigel


Pawsey, James
Wheeler, Sir John


Pickles, Eric
Whittingdale, John


Porter, David (Waveney)
Widdecombe, Ann


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Wilkinson, John


Redwood, John
Willetts, David


Richards, Rod
Wilshire, David


Riddick, Graham
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Robathan, Andrew
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Wolfson, Mark


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Yeo, Tim


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)



Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Mr. Timothy Wood and


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Mr. Nicholas Baker.


Sackville, Tom



NOES


Allen, Graham
Prescott, John


Barnes, Harry
Spearing, Nigel


Cox, Tom
Wareing, Robert N


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Wise, Audrey


Dixon, Don
Worthington, Tony


Golding, Mrs Llin



Hutton, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Mr. Dennis Skinner and


Pike, Peter L.
Mr. Bob Cryer.


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Question accordingly agreed to.

16. EMPLOYEE SHARE SCHEMES (SPECIAL BENEFITS)

Motion made, and Question put,
That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made amending section 80 of the Finance Act 1988.

The House divided: Ayes 211, Noes 14.

Division No. 12]
[8.41 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)


Alexander, Richard
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)


Amess, David
Banks, Matthew (Southport)


Ancram, Michael
Bates, Michael


Arbuthnot, James
Bendall, Vivian


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Beresford, Sir Paul






Biffen, Rt Hon John
Hawksley, Warren


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Heald, Oliver


Body, Sir Richard
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hendry, Charles


Booth, Hartley
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Boswell, Tim
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Bowis, John
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Brandreth, Gyles
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Brazier, Julian
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Bright, Graham
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Burns, Simon
Hunter, Andrew


Burt, Alistair
Jack, Michael


Butterfill, John
Jenkin, Bernard


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Jessel, Toby


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Carrington, Matthew
Jones, Robert B. (W H'f'rdshire)


Carttiss, Michael
Kirkhope, Timothy


Cash, William
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Chaplin, Mrs Judith
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Chapman, Sydney
Knox, David


Clappison, James
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Lait, Ms Jacqui


Coe, Sebastian
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Colvin, Michael
Legg, Barry


Congdon, David
Leigh, Edward


Conway, Derek
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Lidington, David


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Lightbown, David


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Cran, James
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Lord, Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Luff, Peter


Deva, Niranjan
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Devlin, Tim
Maclean, David


Dorrell, Stephen
Maitland, Lady Olga


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Malone, Gerald


Dover, Den
Mans, Keith


Duncan, Alan
Marland, Paul


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Dunn, Bob
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Dykes, Hugh
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Eggar, Tim
Merchant, Piers


Elletson, Harold
Milligan, Stephen


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Monro, Sir Hector


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Moss, Malcolm


Evennett, David
Nelson, Anthony


Faber, David
Neubert, Sir Michael


Fabricant, Michael
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Fishburn, John Dudley
Norris, Steve


Forman, Nigel
Ottaway, Richard


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Page, Richard


Forth, Eric
Patten, Rt Hon John


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Pawsey, James


Fox, Dr Liam
Pickles, Eric


Freeman, Roger
Porter, David (Waveney)


Gale, Roger
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Gallie, Philip
Redwood, John


Gardiner, Sir George
Richards, Rod


Garnier, Edward
Riddick, Graham


Gill, Christopher
Robathan, Andrew


Gillan, Ms Cheryl
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Gorst, John
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Sackville, Tom


Grylls, Sir Michael
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Shersby, Michael


Hampson, Dr Keith
Sims, Roger


Hannam, Sir John
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Harris, David
Spencer, Sir Derek


Haselhurst, Alan
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Hawkins, Nicholas
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)





Spink, Dr Robert
Walden, George


Spring, Richard
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Waller, Gary


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Steen, Anthony
Waterson, Nigel


Stephen, Michael
Wheeler, Sir John


Stewart, Allan
Whittingdale, John


Streeter, Gary
Widdecombe, Ann


Sweeney, Walter
Wilkinson, John


Sykes, John
Willetts, David


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Wilshire, David


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Wolfson, Mark


Thomason, Roy
Wood, Timothy


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Yeo, Tim


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)



Townsend, Cyril D. (B'xl'yh'ath)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Trend, Michael
Mr. Irvine Patrick and


Twinn, Dr Ian
Mr. Robert G. Hughes.


Viggers, Peter



NOES


Allen, Graham
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Barnes, Harry
Spearing, Nigel


Cox, Tom
Wareing, Robert N


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Wise, Audrey


Dixon, Don
Worthington, Tony


Golding, Mrs Llin



Hutton, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Mr. Bob Cryer and


Pike, Peter L.
Mr. Dennis Skinner.

Question accordingly agreed to.

17. DEEP GAIN SECURITIES

Resolved,
That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made amending Schedule 11 to the Finance Act 1989.

18. RIGHTS IN PURSUANCE OF DEPOSITS

Resolved,
That provision may be made about arrangements relating to rights in pursuance of deposits.

19. REDUCED AND COMPOSITE RATE

Motion made, and Question put,
That provision may be made about the reduced rate for building societies and the composite rate for deposit-takers for the years 1986–87 to 1989–90.

The House divided: Ayes 214, Noes 13.

Division No. 13)
[8.52 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Alexander, Richard
Browning, Mrs. Angela


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Amess, David
Burns, Simon


Ancram, Michael
Burt, Alistair


Arbuthnot, James
Butterfill, John


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Carrington, Matthew


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Carttiss, Michael


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Cash, William


Bates, Michael
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Bendall, Vivian
Chaplin, Mrs Judith


Beresford, Sir Paul
Chapman, Sydney


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Clappison, James


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Body, Sir Richard
Coe, Sebastian


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Colvin, Michael


Booth, Hartley
Congdon, David


Boswell, Tim
Conway, Derek


Bowis, John
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Brandreth, Gyles
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Brazier, Julian
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Bright, Graham
Cran, James






Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Lord, Michael


Deva, Niranjan
Luff, Peter


Devlin, Tim
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Dorrell, Stephen
Lynne, Ms Liz


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Dover, Den
Maclean, David


Duncan, Alan
Maitland, Lady Olga


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Malone, Gerald


Dunn, Bob
Mans, Keith


Dykes, Hugh
Marland, Paul


Eggar, Tim
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Elletson, Harold
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Merchant, Piers


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Milligan, Stephen


Evennett, David
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Faber, David
Monro, Sir Hector


Fabricant, Michael
Moss, Malcolm


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Nelson, Anthony


Fishburn, John Dudley
Neubert, Sir Michael


Forman, Nigel
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Forth, Eric
Ottaway, Richard


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Page, Richard


Fox, Dr Liam
Patten, Rt Hon John


Freeman, Roger
Pawsey, James


Gale, Roger
Pickles, Eric


Gallie, Philip
Porter, David (Waveney)


Garnier, Edward
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Gill, Christopher
Redwood, John


Gillan, Ms Cheryl
Richards, Rod


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Riddick, Graham


Gorst, John
Robathan, Andrew


Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Grylls, Sir Michael
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Sackville, Tom


Hampson, Dr Keith
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hannam, Sir John
Shaw, David (Dover)


Harris, David
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Haselhurst, Alan
Shersby, Michael


Hawkins, Nicholas
Sims, Roger


Hawksley, Warren
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Heald, Oliver
Spencer, Sir Derek


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Hendry, Charles
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Spink, Dr Robert


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Spring, Richard


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Steen, Anthony


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Stephen, Michael


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Stewart, Alan


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Streeter, Gary


Hunter, Andrew
Sweeney, Walter


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Sykes, John


Jack, Michael
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Jenkin, Bernard
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Jessel, Toby
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Thomason, Roy


Jones, Robert B. (W H'f'rdshire)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'xl'yh'ath)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Trend, Michael


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Knox, David
Viggers, Peter


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Walden, George


Lait, Ms Jacqui
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Waller, Gary


Legg, Barry
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Leigh, Edward
Waterson, Nigel


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Wheeler, Sir John


Lidington, David
Whittingdale, John


Lightbown, David
Widdecombe, Ann


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Wilkinson, John





Willetts, David
Yeo, Tim


Wilshire, David



Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)
Mr. Irvine Patnick and


Wolfson, Mark
Mr. Robert G. Hughes.


Wood, Timothy



NOES


Allen, Graham
Skinner, Dennis


Cox, Tom
Spearing, Nigel


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Wise, Audrey


Dixon, Don
Worthington, Tony


Golding, Mrs Llin



Hutton, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Mr. Bob Cryer and


Pike, Peter L.
Mr. Harry Barnes.


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Question accordingly agreed to.

20. BANKS ETC. IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION

Resolved,
That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made about companies that are or have been carrying on a deposit-taking business and are in compulsory liquidation.

21. CAPITAL ALLOWANCES (COMPUTER SOFTWARE)

Resolved,
That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made about capital allowances in respect of computer software.

22. CHILD SUPPORT MAINTENANCE AND OTHER PERIODICAL PAYMENTS

Resolved,
That provision may be made with respect to periodical payments under the Child Support Act 1991 or section 106 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 or under any corresponding enactment having effect in Northern Ireland.

23. PAYING AND COLLECTING AGENTS ETC.

Resolved,
That provision may be made about the payment of income tax in respect of dividends or coupons by persons who are chargeable persons for the purposes of Part III of Schedule 3 to the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.

24. OIL LANDED OUTSIDE THE UNITED KINGDOM

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of corporation tax and petroleum revenue tax, provision may be made about the valuation of oil which is, or could reasonably be expected to be, first landed in a country other than the United Kingdom.

25. RELIEF FROM TAX

(INCIDENTAL AND CONSEQUENTIAL CHARGES)

Resolved,
That it is expedient to authorise any incidental or consequential charges to any duty or tax (including charges having retrospective effect) which may arise from provisions designed in general to afford relief from taxation.

PROCEDURE (PUBLICATION OR RATES OF INTEREST)

Resolved,
That, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters which may be included in Finance Bills, any Finance Bill of the present Session may contain provision removing the requirement imposed by section 5(8) of the National Loans Act 1968 to publish certain rates of interest.

PROCEDURE (FUTURE TAXATION)

Motion made, and Question put,
That, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters which may be


included in Finance Bills, any Finance Bill of the present Session may contain the following provisions taking effect in a future year—

(a) provision in relation to the married couple's allowance,
(b) provision in relation to the business expansion scheme, and
(c) provision in relation to capital allowances in respect of buildings and structures in enterprise zones.

The House divided: Ayes 212, Noes 13.

Division No. 14]
[9.03 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Alexander, Richard
Dunn, Bob


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Dykes, Hugh


Amess, David
Eggar, Tim


Ancram, Michael
Elletson, Harold


Arbuthnot, James
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Evennett, David


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Faber, David


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Fabricant, Michael


Bates, Michael
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bendall, Vivian
Fishburn, John Dudley


Beresford, Sir Paul
Forman, Nigel


Bitten, Rt Hon John
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Forth, Eric


Body, Sir Richard
Foster, Donald (Bath)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Booth, Hartley
Fox, Dr Liam


Bowis, John
Freeman, Roger


Brandreth, Gyles
Gale, Roger


Brazier, Julian
Gallie, Philip


Bright, Graham
Garnier, Edward


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gill, Christopher


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Gillan, Ms Cheryl


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Burns, Simon
Gorst, John


Burt, Alistair
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)


Butterfill, John
Greenway, Harry (Eating N)


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Carrington, Matthew
Grylls, Sir Michael


Carttiss, Michael
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie


Cash, William
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hampson, Dr Keith


Chaplin, Mrs Judith
Hannam, Sir John


Chapman, Sydney
Harris, David


Clappison, James
Haselhurst, Alan


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hawkins, Nicholas


Coe, Sebastian
Hawksley, Warren


Colvin, Michael
Heald, Oliver


Congdon, David
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Conway, Derek
Hendry, Charles


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Cran, James
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Deva, Niranjan
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Devlin, Tim
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Dorrell, Stephen
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Dover, Den
Hunter, Andrew


Duncan, Alan
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas





Jack, Michael
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jenkin, Bernard
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jessel, Toby
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Jones, Robert B. (W H'frdshire)
Sackville, Tom


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knapman, Roger
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shersby, Michael


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Sims, Roger


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knox, David
Spencer, Sir Derek


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lait, Ms Jacqui
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Spink, Dr Robert


Legg, Barry
Spring, Richard


Leigh, Edward
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lidington, David
Steen, Anthony


Lightbown, David
Stephen, Michael


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Stewart, Allan


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Streeter, Gary


Lord, Michael
Sweeney, Walter


Luff, Peter
Sykes, John


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Maclean, David
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Malone, Gerald
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Mans, Keith
Thomason, Roy


Marland, Paul
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'xl'yh'ath)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Trend, Michael


Merchant, Piers
Twinn, Dr Ian


Milligan, Stephen
Viggers, Peter


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Walden, George


Monro, Sir Hector
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Moss, Malcolm
Waller, Gary


Nelson, Anthony
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Waterson, Nigel


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Wheeler, Sir John


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Whittingdale, John


Ottaway, Richard
Widdecombe, Ann


Page, Richard
Wilkinson, John


Patten, Rt Hon John
Willetts, David


Pawsey, James
Wilshire, David


Pickles, Eric
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Wolfson, Mark


Redwood, John
Wood, Timothy


Richards, Rod
Yeo, Tim


Riddick, Graham



Robathan, Andrew
Tellers for the Ayes:


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Mr. Irvine Patnick and


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Mr. Tim Boswell.


NOES


Allen, Graham
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Cox, Tom
Spearing, Nigel


Cryer, Bob
Wise, Audrey


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Worthington, Tony


Dixon, Don



Golding, Mrs Llin
Tellers for the Noes:


Hutton, John
Mr. Harry Barnes and


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Mr. Dennis Skinner.


Pike. Peter L.

Question accordingly agreed to.

FINANCE BILL [Money]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session relating to finance, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of sums payable by virtue of any provision of that Act enabling provision to be made under section 128 of the Finance Act 1990 about the repayment of sums paid to the Secretary of State in connection with the retention, sale or assignment of a vehicle registration mark.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

Ordered,
That a Bill be brought in upon the foregoing resolutions: And that the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Clarke, Mr. Secretary Heseltine, Mr. Secretary MacGregor, Mr. Secretary Howard, Mr. Secretary Lilley, Mrs. Secretary Shephard, Mr. Michael Portillo, Mr. Stephen Dorrell, Sir John Cope, and Mr. Anthony Nelson do prepare and bring it in.

FINANCE BILL

Mr. Stephen Dorrell accordingly presented a Bill to grant certain duties, to alter other duties, to amend the law relating to the national debt and the public revenue, and to make further provision in connection with finance: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 5.]

Orimulsion

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]

Mr. Peter L. Pike: I am delighted to be able to make this, my first speech in this new Parliament, with you in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I welcome you to your new post. I know that you will fill it with distinction.
I should express my appreciation to Madam Speaker, who has given me the opportunity to raise this matter in an Adjournment debate so early in the new Parliament. We are debating an issue of considerable importance. I have restricted the terms of the debate to the burning of orimulsion at Padiham power station, although I recognise that the matter is of wider concern, because when I submitted my application just over a week ago I envisaged the debate lasting for the traditional half an hour. Instead, we have more time to debate the important issues that this subject raises. It is right that we should do so.
I know that several of my hon. Friends have already expressed wider concerns. Indeed, while Padiham power station is within the constituency and borough boundary of Burnley, the pollution that it may emit will drift and cause considerable problems in a much wider area, depending on the direction in which the wind happens to be blowing. Therefore, this is not just a local issue of concern; it affects a much wider area.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) would have liked to be with us tonight but, unfortunately, in the past 24 hours, major redundancies in the royal ordnance factory in his constituency have been announced. I am sure that hon. Members will appreciate why my hon. Friend has found it impossible to be here for the debate. But for that constituency problem, of great importance and urgency, he would have been here to show his concern.
There is concern among both Labour and Conservative Members about the burning of orimulsion at Padiham power station. I know that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) asked a question about this yesterday and has issued a statement today. He has chosen not to speak in the debate tonight because he has not made his maiden speech and wishes to do so in a debate that is less restrictive than this one. His statement says that he has stressed to Ministers his
concern that the burning of orimulsion would lead to an increase in the current sulphur level over Read and Simonstone",
which are parts of the Ribble valley that are adjacent to the Padiham power station. The statement continued:
because of this, he would not be prepared to support the burning of orimulsion at Padiham Power Station.
That shows the widespread concern about the burning of orimulsion.
I would never read The Sun, but some time ago I saw on television a report of an article in that newspaper entitled "Black rain eats cars". It said that the rain ate through the paint on more than £6 million worth of cars because it had been affected by emissions from a PowerGen station in another part of the country. I know that the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) will try to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to speak about this as well. That was my first hearing of the word


"orimulsion". I did not know what it meant. The Observer ran articles on the subject, one of which identified orimulsion as a front-runner for the title of filthiest fuel in the world. Not long after that, I received a message telling me of a proposal to burn orimulsion at Padiham power station, in my constituency. I was extremely worried by that.
In fairness to National Power, let me say that it has kept me informed throughout. Indeed, I received some information about orimulsion from National Power yesterday: the company considers that it is a beautiful fuel that will solve many problems. BP-Bitor, the company that wants to sell the fuel, also sent me some literature yesterday.
Throughout the exercise, the company has supplied information to the local authorities and to me and has tried to allay our fears. None the less, given that the only available information comes from those who want either to sell or to burn the fuel. I am beginning to wonder whether that information is genuine and can be accepted without doubts.
Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution is still examining the exercise. Ultimately, it will lay down certain conditions, and will say either yes or no to the proposal. If any questions remain in my mind in regard to safety, however, and if I think that those questions cannot be answered, I shall feel that we must say no to the fuel. Safety is crucial.
Mine is not the only constituency involved. The wind may blow the pollution towards Pendle, and, when it blows from the north-east, it may drift over Hyndburn. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope) is very concerned about that.

Mr. Greg Pope: This is indeed a matter of major concern to the people of Hyndburn. Padiham power station is less than a mile from the boundary of my constituency. Is this not another example of the use of a cheap and dangerous fuel by a privatised industry that will put profits before people?

Mr. Pike: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. As he said, the power station is fairly near the boundary of his constituency; it is also on the edge of my constituency and the constituency of Ribble Valley. Part of the Hyndburn constituency is clearly visible just across the road, and parts of Pendle are not far away. The wind is not constant, and may blow at different speeds and in different directions.
In the previous two Parliaments I was a member of the Environment Select Committee and was involved in early reports that the Committee put out about acid rain. Those reports condemned the "tall chimneys" approach to dispersing emissions from power stations, but the proposals were initially rubbished: it was said that there were no problems with acid rain. Over the years views have changed, and I believe that it is now recognised that the Committee identified a real danger. Now we must be satisfied that we shall not increase the existing problems.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn made a valid point when he referred to the financial considerations. I was told by the press that they had been told that the Minister who would reply to the debate would be from the Department of Trade and Industry. The Government

have done away with the Department of Energy: energy now forms just a section of the Department of Trade and Industry.
I welcome the Minister for the Environment and Countryside to his new position on the Treasury Bench. I am glad that a Department of the Environment Minister is to reply to this debate. If a Department of Trade and Industry Minister had been sent here, it would have increased people's fears that environment problems would not come first and would not be looked at as closely as other aspects of the matter. I repeat that I welcome the Minister to his new post. I had dealings with him on a number of other issues in the last Parliament when he had ministerial responsibilities in another Department. I am glad that the Government have chosen to recognise that this debate is concerned with environmental problems.
The Opposition are concerned, however, that the Government do not intend to introduce a new green Bill. We were told before the election that there would be a new environmental Bill. We believe that they have chosen not to introduce such a Bill because their view is that green issues have a lower priority than cash.

The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Maclean): No.

Mr. Pike: The Minister says, "No." The Government have to prove their case. I believe that over the four or five-year term of this Parliament our fears will prove to have been justified. If, however, we can accept in good faith what has just been said by the Minister, we shall be happy. It would be good to know that green issues are important to the Government.
The Government still have a 40 per cent. stake in National Power. If they chose to do so, they could, by means of their shareholding in National Power, direct policy. However, they choose not to do so, and that is extremely worrying. National Power is in competition with PowerGen, which has already obtained permission to use orimulsion at certain power stations. Therefore, National Power quite rightly says that if PowerGen is allowed to use this cheap fuel on an experimental basis, it, too, should be able to do so. The point, however, is that PowerGen carried out those experiments before the Environmental Protection Act 1990 was passed. I was a member of the Standing Committee that considered the Bill. The Environmental Protection Act represents a tremendous move in the right direction. It did not go as far as the Opposition would have wished, but I repeat that it represents a major move in the right direction.
The question is whether the provisions of that Act will be applied to the Padiham power station and Pembroke power station proposals. The new competition within the industry means that the privatised companies have to compete with each other. That worries many of us. The use of natural gas for the generation of electricity at peak times in, say, January may be sensible, but one has to question its use at other times of the year. National Power argues that natural gas is a good fuel to use for the generation of electricity because it is clean, not a polluter. However, it then goes right to the opposite extreme of opting for a cheap fuel that would cause major pollution problems.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman knows that today I received an answer to a question about the Pembroke power station that dealt with this issue. It reveals the confusion to which the hon.


Gentleman just alluded. If the change of use proposed for the power station in Burnley is the same as that proposed for Pembroke, two approvals will be required from the Department of Trade and Industry—one for planning permission to extend the building and the other from Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution to authorise the burning of orimulsion. It is possible that then there would be a planning public inquiry which, this answer tells me, would be set up and decided upon by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. That was a bit of a surprise to me. There is to be no proper consideration of fuel in any form of inquiry, and presumably that is what the people of Lancashire and south-west Wales would want. An inquiry would mean that the entire matter would be raised in one debate. That would alleviate many fears in Wales and the north-west.

Mr. Pike: The hon. Gentleman has made a valid point. The issues involved in the use of this fuel are too important to allow proposals to be considered in such a bits-and-pieces manner, in different parts of the country and not necessarily in the same way. The hon. Gentleman referred to the possibility of a planning inquiry. I do not know whether matters would be dealt with differently in Wales, but the fact that this point is to be decided by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry raises fears about whether environmental issues or money will be the main factors. That is extremely worrying.
Whether energy provision is publicly or privately owned, I believe that the Government have a right to determine what fuel sources should be used and in what percentages. Energy is so crucial to our everyday lives in industry, commerce and at home that it should not be left to a competitive private sector and free market forces. There is a fundamental difference of view on that aspect.

Mr. Frank Dobson: Does my hon. Friend agree that when Britain is suffering severely from a trade deficit it seems extraordinary that, as a result of Government policies, we are now importing 15 million tonnes of natural gas, 20 million tonnes of coal and, if the orimulsion proposals are allowed to go ahead, God knows how many million tonnes of orimulsion? All that will damage the balance of trade and cause disaster to the coalfield communities.

Mr. Pike: My hon. Friend must have been reading my mind, because I was about to deal with that. When we have our own resources, it seems crazy that we should import orimulsion, coal and perhaps increasing quantities of natural gas, all of which imports worsen our balance of payments. The Government say that they can manage our economy; yet even though we have had our own massive resources of oil and gas over the past few years, we still have a huge trade deficit.
The environmental issues are crucial. Far too many questions are unanswered. Many people are worried about whether we know all the questions that we should be asking. That may seem a strange thing to say, but we are talking about a brand new fuel and we do not know the long-term implications of its use. It may be that, although we are currently focusing our attention on important environmental matters, they may not be the most important matters. I am concerned that, even though we may use the fuel on an experimental basis, there may be a

problem. What do we do if, in 10 years, a Minister has to come to the Dispatch Box and say, "I'm sorry, but because we have been allowing that fuel to be burnt at Padiham power station, we have a terrible disaster in Rossendale and Darwen"? I am pleased to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms. Anderson) is present.

Ms. Janet Anderson: This issue is of great concern to my constituents. They have —and have had for many years—a deep interest in environmental matters. The proposal will worry them deeply if it proceeds, which is why the Labour-controlled Rossendale borough council voiced its strong opposition to it. I fully support that stance.

Mr. Pike: My hon. Friend underlines the point that I am making. There is concern now but in 10 years' time, if a Minister from whichever party had to say, "We are sorry, but there is a disaster in Rossendale or Pendle", or wherever it may be, what on earth would we do? It would be no good saying that the authorities acted in good faith but had no idea of the implications. Therefore, unless the Minister can say that we are absolutely certain that using the fuel is 100 per cent. safe and that there can be no problems at all, we must say that we are not prepared to allow it.

Mr. Dobson: Will my hon. Friend cast his mind back to what he said a few minutes ago about chimney emissions causing acid rain and about that finally being acknowledged? I recall the very dim and distant days when I first started work at the generating board. I recently checked its annual report—and the Minister should listen to this if he is also listening to experts.

Mr. Maclean: I am listening.

Mr. Dobson: I was not suggesting that the hon. Gentleman was not. The generating board's annual report for 1962 or 1963, annnouncing the new single stack chimneys under the heading "Clean air", said that as its new contribution to cleaning the air it would use one chimney per power station with one flue. It believed that the chimney emissions would hurtle out at such a temperature and speed that they would rise into the upper atmosphere and do no harm at all. That was what the chimney emission experts said in the 1960s but they were, in fact, announcing the invention of acid rain.

Mr. Pike: My hon. Friend is right. In all the time that I served on the Select Committee on the Environment—which was an excellent Committee under a Conservative Chairman, Sir Hugh Rossi, who is no longer with us—it produced some extremely good reports on long sea outfalls, chlorofluorocarbons and other issues. All those reports were initially rubbished and thrown into the waste bin, but a few years later people saw some truth in them and realised that they contained issues of which they should take note. There is a parallel to tonight's debate because, at the moment, we do not know all the facts about orimulsion.
Orimulsion is a fuel based on the bitumen from the Orinoco delta in Venezuela. BP Bitor is a joint company involving Venezuela and BP in this country. The bitumen comes from the ground in massive quantities and is mixed with water to make it transportable. The fact that it is mixed with water and is an emulsion causes particular


problems when it is burnt in the combustion process to create energy. If the combustion process is not right and if there is a large amount of water with the emissions, will it return to earth more quickly? What other problems could be caused? That is one example of the problems that we face.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen mentioned her local authority in relation to the proposal for Padiham. Local authorities such as Burnley. Hyndburn, Pendle and Ribble Valley, Rossendale borough council, Lancashire county council and others in the immediate area are all working together and expressing similar concern to HMIP. They are all unable to find experts independent of BP or of National Power to give them advice on what they should suggest objectively to HMIP. That has been the difficulty for them and for anyone trying to make constructive proposals to deal with the request to burn orimulsion at Padiham power station.
Friends of the Earth say that the burning of orimulsion could fail to meet EC directive 80/779 and they believe that it could fail to meet the terms of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Orimulsion produces 20 per cent. more sulphur dioxide and a higher percentage of respirable dust than residual fuel oil.
Padiham power station was considered for burning orimulsion because it was built as a coal-fired station, and then became oil-fired, then one generator was returned to coal and the other was hardly used; so, relative to the age of the power station, the second generator set is fairly new.
A difficulty emerges. Of course sulphur emissions can be reduced if action is taken, and if HMIP insists on measures to deal with the emissions and all the problems with other emissions, whatever those happen to be. The problem that arises is that National Power—or, in the case of the other proposals, PowerGen—may say that the measures are too expensive, and the companies are not prepared to carry them out.
Knowing how the Government work, I suspect that they may say to National Power, "Okay, we will bend the rules and allow you to go ahead anyway." They will consider the Environmental Protection Act in terms of BATNEEC—best available techniques not entailing excessive costs—and agree that the costs are excessive, and allow the companies to go ahead. That is a grave worry, so we shall be interested to hear what the Minister says about it.
Friends of the Earth are worried about the percentage of heavy metals—which is higher than that in residual fuel oil—such as vanadium, and the carcinogenic metal, nickel. Some of those metals will be destroyed during the combustion process, but the evidence is clear that a larger percentage than with oil or other fuels will be emitted into the atmosphere. Such emissions can have implications even more serious than those of sulphur. I know that National Power says that that is not true, but I do not believe that the company has yet proved its case sufficiently to convince other people. There are more worries about the heavy metal emissions than about the sulphur because of their long life and the gradual, cumulative effect over the years.
I asked earlier how much National Power would invest in Padiham. That sum must, of course, be considered relative to its life span. The power station may have another 10 years left—12 years at the most. How much more money are people prepared to invest in it? That question does not mean that I am not concerned about the

jobs at the power station. I fought to keep it, and I want to see it survive—but not as a safety hazard to the people who work in it and the wider public.
I know that several other hon. Members wish to speak in the debate, so although there are many other items that I could raise, it would be wrong for me to prevent other people from making a contribution. It is important to show the wide concern about the proposal. I shall say only a little more, and then allow other people to speak. We certainly want the Minister to have adequate time to respond.
To quote an item from English Nature, Dr. Farmer said:
The burning of Orimulsion planned by National Power can only increase ecological damage caused by acid rain".
The World Wildlife Fund and the Countryside Commission have written to HMIP objecting to the proposals to burn the fuel. That shows the concern of a wide spread of people and organisations involved in environmental and ecological matters. They are concerned about acid emissions, the implications for soil and water, for plant and water life—and, of course, ultimately, for human life as well. We all hope that HMIP is carrying out its duties towards the public under the Act, but there are some question marks, because what happens is not seen out in the open.
The Minister could answer the questions tonight by saying that the Government will not allow the proposal to go ahead unless they are 100 per cent. certain that the fuel can be burnt safely and that there are no unanswered questions. The Minister may say tonight that he believes that the best way forward in considering the burning of the fuel is to allow a public inquiry at which all the many important issues and the other issues that will be brought out in this debate can be properly aired and properly considered. Everyone will then have the full facts. That is why this debate is so important.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): I will call the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) next. Although I fully understand that he may want to make remarks about his predecessor and that he may want to express other pleasantries, I must point out that it will be necessary for him to stick to the main subject of the Adjournment debate.

Mr. Nick Ainger: I congratulate you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on your appointment. I wish you well in your office as, I am sure, do all other hon. Members.
I am the first Labour candidate to be elected to the House for Pembroke since 1966. I am also the first Labour Member for the reorganised Pembroke constituency which was established after the 1979 election. I will try to keep my traditional comments brief, because we are debating an important issue and I do not want to take up valuable time.
I pay tribute to my immediate predecessor, Mr. Nicholas Bennett, who was undoubtedly a hard-working Member of Parliament. That was recognised by the Prime Minister in his first reshuffle when he appointed Nicholas Bennett the Under-Secretary of State for Wales. I wish Mr. Bennett well. I understand that he is determined to return to this place. All I say to him is that I wish him well as long as he is elected in a safe Tory seat and not in a Labour seat. He inherited a majority of almost 10,000 from his


predecessor, Mr. Nicholas Edwards, who is now Lord Crickhowell. He was a distinguished Member of the House and served well as Secretary of State for Wales for a long period in the 1980s. Lord Crickhowell is now the chairman of the National Rivers Authority.
I will go briefly through the problems that Pembroke faces which are apposite to our debate. Pembroke has many wonderful things going for it, especially its coastline and its national park. Generally, it is a most beautiful constituency and I have been lucky to live there for 21 years. I intend to stay there as Member of Parliament and certainly as a resident. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) knows the area well because he is a regular walker in the unique Pembroke national park.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: That is enough of that.

Mr. Ainger: That is enough of that.
Although we have many benefits, we have serious economic problems. The Milford Haven estuary has one of the largest petrochemical installations in Britain. It has three oil refineries and an oil-fired power station and is a major port in any terms. However, Esso decided to close its refinery in the early 1980s. The Milford fishing industry has been in decline and has now gone into receivership. I understand that the vessels have recently been sold to Irish interests.
We have had major closures in the defence industry, which is a major employer, and we now face the possibility of RAF Brawdy and RNAD Trecwn closing with massive unemployment consequences involving between 1,200 and 1,500 people which in a rural constituency is rather like major cities having 5,000 or 10,000 redundancies at once.
Against that background, I will describe how carefully the local authorities have considered the application by National Power to burn orimulsion at the Pembroke power station. With the greatest respect, I have to say that Pembroke power station is a giant in comparison to Padiham power station, which is more a minnow in terms of size of combustion plant. Pembroke is a 2,000 MW station.
National Power plans to import up to 3 million tonnes of orimulsion and burn it in Pembroke power station. As my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) has said, not only does orimulsion have a high sulphur content per unit, but it has a 30 per cent. water content and therefore a much lower calorific value than ordinary heavy or residual fuel oil. In other words, one must burn half as much again to obtain the same amount of energy and, in doing so, one creates half as much again of sulphur dioxide emissions.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley said, sulphur dioxide is a major cause of acid rain. He referred to the problems in his constituency and in neighbouring constituencies. However, with regard to Pembroke, we are not simply talking about a local, regional or national problem; we are talking about an international problem.
If National Power receives the go-ahead without installing flue gas desulphurisation, which would virtually eliminate sulphur dioxide emissions, the Germans and the

Scandinavians will be on our backs complaining, quite rightly, that Pembroke power station is massively increasing acid rain problems in their countries.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) has already raised the issue of acid rain deposition in his constituency and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West has explained that the National Rivers Authority is expressing grave concern about the catchment areas in the Cambrian mountains, in the Elan valley reservoir area and in tiny pools. The N RA fears that if orimulsion is burnt in Pembroke power station without flue gas desulphurisation, the sulphur dioxide deposits will greatly acidify the streams and rivers that currently support salmon and trout fisheries. That is a major problem for north Lancashire, south-west Wales and Pembrokeshire, and it spreads throughout Europe.
My constituency has the highest level of unemployment in Wales. The current figure is 5,200. I am sensitive to statements or practical implications that could affect unemployment in my constituency. I should love to see unemployment plummet in my constituency, but I am a realist. We have a major problem and a dim future when we consider what is on the horizon, particularly in relation to the defence industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West, in his capacity as Opposition Front-Bench spokesman on energy, have spoken to the workers at Pembroke power station. The workers recognise that there will be a serious environmental problem if orimulsion is burnt in the power station without the proper pollution controls.
I have referred to sulphur dioxide and the problems that it is already causing in Europe. Unfortunately, the Black forest is literally black at the moment as a result of acid fall-out. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley also explained that, while orimulsion contains sulphur, it also contains heavy metals such as vanadium and mercury. A planning application was originally before the Department of Energy and is now before the Department of Trade and Industry. It was made because National Power plans to install four large dust precipitators to remove the particulate material from the flue.
I have here a document produced on behalf of Dyfed county council by Gibbs Environment, an independent consultancy. It states clearly that, even with the so-called state-of-the-art filters which National Power plans to put on the stack, there will still be a significant increase in the amount of dust emitted from the stack. As it is such fine material, part of that dust will be heavy metals such as vanadium and mercury. In certain concentrations they are carcinogens and they undoubtedly cause asthma and the like. There are great fears among the local populace, because the dust would be a local rather than regional, national or international fall-out.
The document was produced by scientists, not politicians. It also says that because the fuel has a large water content it is possible that local clouds of not sulphuric but hydrochloric acid could fall, given the right climatic conditions or, for Pembroke and the surrounding areas, the wrong climatic conditions. There could be local acid rain fall-out within the national park and the towns of Pembroke, Haverfordwest, Milford and so on.
The scientific evidence is overwhelmingly against the proposal. The scientists are saying not only to the county


council, the Pembrokeshire Coast national park and South Pembrokeshire district council but to the World Wide Fund for Nature, the National Rivers Authority and the Countryside Council for Wales, all of which have registered objections, that there should be a proper public inquiry and investigation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley has said. This is a new fuel. We must look differently at the way in which we treat the flue gas emissions from the stacks. In Germany, Denmark, Japan, Spain, Italy, Canada and the United States, Governments insist on full flue gas desulphurisation and state-of-the-art filtration systems before orimulsion can be burned neat.
The problem for National Power is simply, as was said earlier, that its competitor PowerGen took over the Ince B power station on Merseyside. The Central Electricity Generating Board had been running an experimental burn of orimulsion at that power station when the takeover took place. PowerGen has been allowed to continue it. In that respect, I have a great deal of sympathy with National Power; its competitor has been allowed to burn orimulsion without flue gas desulphurisation, special filters or anything else, because it started burning the fuel before the Environmental Protection Act 1990 came in, along with the various controls and reviews involved in that legislation.
PowerGen is in the same market as National Power, yet National Power is faced with the possibility—I hope that it is a distinct probability—that if it is ever given permission to burn orimulsion it will be only with full FGD and proper state-of-the-art filtration. Let us be honest: National Power is competing not only with PowerGen but with coal and gas. Surely Conservative Members appreciate the concept of the level playing field. If flue gas desulphurisation is not fitted at Pembroke power station, at Padiham or anywhere else, there will be no level playing field. Cheap fuel is being brought in and it will produce massive amounts of acid rain. There are distinct possibilities of heavy metal fall-out and local acid rain because National Power is not willing to make the investment—I admit that it would be large—to put in FGD.

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]

Mr. Ainger: I know that other hon. Members wish to speak and I shall try to be brief.
National Power is, understandably, looking towards burning orimulsion full time at Pembroke power station. Following the hike in crude oil prices in the early 1970s, the station has never been able to run in the way for which it was designed, which was as a base-load station burning heavy fuel oil supplied by the adjacent oil refineries. National Power wishes now to turn the power station into a base-load station burning orimulsion. It says that if Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, or the Government, do not impose what are in my opinion the necessary pollution controls, it will wish to run the station—all the four units—to produce up to 2,000 MW of electricity. It says that it is unwilling to make the investment in flue gas desulphurisation, purely for commercial reasons.
I suggest that if it is commercially viable in the United States, Canada and Germany, where orimulsion is being burnt by private generators, to make the investment. it is

similarly viable in the United Kingdom. There is no doubt that National Power is trying to get away with burning orimulsion on the cheap.
I want to see employment continue at Pembroke power station. If orimulsion is to be burnt in the United Kingdom, there must be all the necessary pollution protection that is now available. There should be a level playing field for National Power and PowerGen. There should be a level playing field also throughout Europe, which will extend to our German competitors or colleagues, call them what you will.
At Pembroke power station there are 300 employees, but a cut is planned for March, 1993. The management has said that if orimulsion goes ahead 80 or 90 jobs will be lost instead of 150. Even if permission is granted by HMIP, the present 300 jobs will not be secure.
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley for raising an important issue and giving me the opportunity to draw to the attention of the House the grave problems that Pembroke faces.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand that the Minister would wish to reply at 10.10 pm.

Mr. David Shaw: I congratulate the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) on making his maiden speech in the difficult circumstances, on this occasion, of trying to be non-controversial. I congratulate him on his fair and well justified comments in paying tribute to the previous Member for Pembroke, Nick Bennett. We all know that elections are won or lost; we know also that many colleagues work very hard as Members of this place, and Nick Bennett certainly worked very hard for his constituency. I look forward as undoubtedly other hon. Members do to hearing from the hon. Gentleman in future.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) on securing this debate which is of considerable interest across the party Benches. There is concern about the use of orimulsion whether in his constituency power station or other power stations. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) is here beside me taking considerable interest in the proceedings on behalf of his constituents.
Orimulsion at Padiham has considerable interest for my constituents. As the hon. Member for Burnley said, some time last year there was a major incident with orimulsion at Richborough power station in Thanet, South which is close to the major town of Deal in my constituency. Some £6 million worth of motor cars were damaged with the result that there is considerable interest wherever orimulsion is burned.
The problem was first raised with me in my constituency last year. Since then I have raised the issue with Ministers, PowerGen and British Petroleum, and I have visited the BP chemicals operation at Sunbury where there is a very good video, which I commend to hon. Members, that explains a great deal about orimulsion. It would relieve many Members of their anxieties, some of which are unfounded when considered against the details. I am concerned that much of the detailed information about orimulsion has not come into the open. Many


aspects need to be explained to Members of Parliament and members of the public. I hope that the Minister can reassure us with information in his speech.
Last year I wrote both to the Minister and to Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution about orimulsion, hoping to secure a meeting with HMIP and believing that by now it might be an independent agency with some of the openness and benefits that such an arrangement brings. I was saddened that after considerable delay the reply came from the Minister's office, not HMIP. I hoped that the reply would fix a time and date for a meeting, but I am still waiting. I believe that it will be a ministerial meeting with HMIP present. I am not too fussed about the arrangements, but I want to have the benefit of questioning Ministers and HMIP at a meeting. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley would like to be present as, I am sure, would other hon. Members to get at the facts.
I shall try to be as brief as I can. So far my research has shown that, although orimulsion has many plus factors, it has negative ones, too. The plus factors are that the fuel burns efficiently in small, nearly perfectly formed droplets. Because of that, the dust emissions appear to be considerably less and safer than those of other fuels, such as coal or oil A further advantage is that orimulsion results from British technology. I do not want to be particularly controversial, but I should chastise the Labour party a little. Labour Members often go on about the need for research and development, and one of the benefits of orimulsion is that it is the result of British research and development. BP has been successful in using its research and development with the Venezuelan Government and oil company to produce a fuel that has many benefits, although possible disadvantages. A further benefit is that large quantities of orimulsion are available at an acceptable price. Therefore, orimulsion brings benefits in terms of price and availability to the British economy.
The negative factor is that sulphur dioxide emissions can be considerable and that if inefficient procedures operate in the burning process, as happened at Richborough, there can be large amounts of sulphur trioxide. When mixed with water in the atmosphere, sulphur dioxide and sulphur trioxide produce sulphurous and sulphuric acids. A combination of those apparently produced the smut that landed on cars in Richborough. We must be concerned about those smuts in respect of the health of constituents.
I hope that, when replying, the Minister will mention the problems of HMIP and the aspects of commercial confidentiality that have been cited in letters to me and about which I am concerned. Much of the secrecy that normally operates in respect of commercially confidential information should be swept aside in this case and the files, including those of HMIP, should be opened up. Hon. Members should have the opportunity, on behalf of their constituents, to examine the matter fully.
I am glad to have had this opportunity to speak and I congratulate the hon. Member for Burnley on raising the subject.

The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Maclean): This is one of those rare parliamentary occasions. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) said that he was surprised that a Minister from the Department of Trade and Industry would not be replying to the debate. I am from the Department of the Environment. I am glad that on this occasion a Minister of State is able to answer, because we are discussing an important subject. I am also happy to note that, a new hon. Member having made his maiden speech, the most senior Minister available in the House is able to congratulate him. I fulsomely congratulate the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger).
As my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) said, many of us were good friends of Nick Bennett, who was an outstanding Member and a very good ministerial colleague. So I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Pembroke pay a warm tribute to him. I was also pleased with his remarks about his constituency. It is customary to say that one looks forward to hearing much more from a maiden speaker. On this occasion, I began to realise as he was speaking that he really knows the subject, whereas I have come to it new and have had to swot it up in recent weeks. The hon. Gentleman therefore will not take it amiss when I say that I hope that I shall not have to reply to him in future debates, considering that he is such a master of the subject. Others who do not have to reply to him will be pleased to hear his contributions. I congratulate him.

Mr. Pike: I intervene at this stage simply because none of my hon. Friends will have an opportunity in this debate to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) on his maiden speech. We echo the Minister's comments. My hon. Friend made a fluent and well informed speech. At the same time, I commiserate with my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), who has been present throughout the debate but has not had an opportunity to speak. He was the only one of my hon. Friends present to whom I did not refer. I thought that he would have an opportunity to speak.

Mr. Maclean: I, too, regret that the hon. Gentleman did not have a chance to take part in the debate. It is clear from the number of hon. Members present for an Adjournment debate how much interest there is in the subject. My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) tackled me on the subject outside the Chamber, before the debate commenced. I appreciate that there is much concern about the issue.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Burnley for raising the matter, although I suspect that many people outside, like me until a few days ago, would have said, if asked to give an opinion about orimulsion, that it was the latest home decorating product. For many others, particularly those living near power stations where the fuel is burnt, or where it is proposed to be burnt, it is a serious matter of deep current concern. So I am pleased to have this opportunity to reply to the debate.
We live in a world where the market for fuels is constantly changing. Since the oil crisis of the mid-1970s and the increases in oil prices and generally greater volatility of the oil markets that followed it, the choice of oil as a fuel for power generation has become increasingly unattractive, as hon. Members pointed out. That is especially significant because, unlike, say, road transport,


there are several other competing sources of energy which power generators can use. We have therefore seen a progressive decline in the utilisation of oil-fired power stations, such as Pembroke and Padlham, although they still play a part in the generation of our electricity.
Against that background, it is easy to understand the appeal of a new fuel, competitively priced against other fuels, available in large quantities and capable of being burned in oil-fired power stations with relatively minor modifications. Such, we gather, is the situation with orimulsion, a bitumen in water emulsion produced in Venezuela, where huge reserves are said to exist. That fuel is now being marketed around the world—in Europe under a joint venture with British Petroleum—with, as hon. Members said, some success.
However, if the world today is characterised by a lively, ever-changing energy market, it is also witnessing an upsurge of concern for the environment. Significantly, we are now less than a month away from one of the most important environmental events ever held, the Earth summit in Rio. We are seeing a welcome growth in environmental awareness and concern here and abroad, which is affecting more and more areas of our daily lives. It is quite right that that is the case.
Energy production is one such area. The days when we could produce power by burning whatever fuel was most easily and most cheaply available, with little regard to environmental effects, are mercifully long gone. But now, more than ever before, the environmental aspects of power generation are a central concern in the energy industry. It is therefore right that any proposal radically to change an aspect of the industry, especially one involving a new fuel source, should receive careful, thorough scrutiny from an environmental perspective. It is no accident that this debate is being answered tonight by an Environment Minister: it is a sign, 1 assure hon. Members, of the importance that the environment is playing in the consideration of this new fuel.
May I digress for a moment? I also assure hon. Gentlemen that we are proceeding with drafting our Environmental Agency Bill. It has not been put on the back burner, and we shall seek the earliest legislative opportunity to push ahead with it.
As a general rule, the electricity generators should be left to decide which fuels to burn and in what quantities. The hon. Gentleman may disagree with that philosophy, but subject to compliance with the non-fossil fuel orders, it is an operational matter for the companies. We now have a competitive electricity market with a number of new players. We also have a powerful regulator which oversees the operation of the market and safeguards the interests of consumers.
However, like all other large-scale industrial processes, power generation is a source of pollution. For example, power stations account for about 70 per cent. of the United Kingdom's major sources of sulphur dioxide, one of the main causes of acid rain. Another reason why I am pleased to answer this debate is that I represent Penrith and The Border in the Lake district, where we, too, know a bit about acid rain. It is vital to exert proper control over the industry, given its implications for the wider environment. Thanks to the actions of my predecessors, that is exactly what we now have.
The electricity generators, like other polluting industries, are subject to the rigorous system of integrated pollution control introduced under the Environmental

Protection Act 1990 which is a unique first in Europe. It is no exaggeration to describe this as one of the toughest pollution control regimes in the world. It puts the United Kingdom at the forefront of environmental protection.
For example, we are playing a crucial part in the European Community's efforts to extend the principle of integrated pollution control throughout the EC. Pollution control knows no national boundaries. It cannot be artificially compartmentalised, especially when a single process may release pollutants into more than one medium. It therefore needs a broad, integrated approach, and that is exactly what we now have.
The hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend spoke of the possible harmful effects of the burning of orimulsion. Even if I were able to, I am sure that the House would not thank me for going into a complex, technical explanation of the results of orimulsion combustion. I think that 1 could match the hon. Member for Pembroke on that. Thankfully, we have experts far better equipped to do so. However, I can confirm that, while on some counts orimulsion compares favourably with other fuels, it does give cause for concern on environmental grounds. In particular, the emission levels of some heavy metals, especially vanadium and nickel, are significantly higher than other fuels, and orimulsion does release more sulphur dioxide than other fuels per unit of energy produced.
It is therefore vital to ensure that any proposal to burn that fuel is carefully considered from the environmental perspective. I am happy to confirm that that is exactly what is happening. The combustion of fuels in power stations is one of the processes controlled by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, under integrated pollution control, and no orimulsion—or, indeed, any other fuel —can be burned in any power station without its authority.
I am pleased to note that, despite the concerns voiced tonight, no one has questioned the integrity or the rigour of HMIP. I heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Dover said about a meeting, and I will consider that possibility. However, I want jealously to guard the independence of HMIP. If that means that I have to refuse meetings with Members of Parliament, I hope that the House will understand the valid reason for doing so.
The inspectorate has received applications from National Power to burn orimulsion at its Padiham and Pembroke power stations, and from PowerGen to continue to burn orimulsion at its Ince and Richborough power stations. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Pembroke for mentioning electrostatic precipitators. At Richborough, the requirement to use electrostatic precipitators means that particulate emissions are exactly half what they would be if the station were burning coal. Furthermore, HMIP has required total sulphur dioxide emissions from both Ince and Richborough to be no higher than they would have been if the power stations had been burning fuel oil at full load.
All those applications are currently under consideration. I cannot predict the outcome of the inspectorate's deliberations; indeed, it would be wrong of me to try. I have heard what has been said in the House tonight. I heard the comments about flue gas desulphurisation, but that is a matter for HMIP to determine. I am sure that the House will appreciate that, as any appeal would fall to be considered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, it would be wrong of me to comment on the merits of the applications.

Mr. David Shaw: My hon. Friend has made a valid point about the independence of HMIP. However, I am still concerned to clarify with him the extent to which Members of Parliament can actually question and become involved, as some hon. Members have, in the technical details. 1 sense that on both sides of the House there is a desire by Members of Parliament, who may not be technically trained but who have some limited technical understanding, to get down to the details. Do we have access to HMIP or do we have to go through a Minister? How can we actually get at the details?

Mr. Maclean: Perhaps the best thing would be if I produced a note showing the status of HMIP. That might satisfy all hon. Members. All the data sent to the HMIP go into the public domain and its decisions go on to the public registers. Anyone is entitled to send information to it for consideration and deliberation before it comes to a decision. It might also be helpful if I describe in that note the relationship that Members of Parliament could have with HMIP.

Mr. Pike: Will the Minister give us an assurance that, if HMIP says that orimulsion cannot be burnt unless certain conditions are met and National Power, or PowerGen, says that it cannot afford to meet those conditions, it will not be overridden?

Mr. Maclean: There is an appeal system, which I cannot prejudice by giving any guarantee about whether something will or will not be burnt. I am certain that HMIP will not hesitate to stipulate the provisions of whatever pollution abatement equipment it considers necessary as one of the conditions of any authorisation it grants. In reaching this decision, HMIP has a duty to ensure that, for example, any statutory air quality standards are not exceeded.
Concern has particularly been expressed at the possible damage burning orimulsion might do to the environment, regardless of any abatement measures which HMIP may require. Indeed, the hon. Member for Burnley has argued that its importation and use by the power industry should simply not be allowed. As I have said, I cannot accept the imposition of blanket restrictions of this kind. Provided the protection of the environment is properly taken into account, the Government consider that the generators should be granted the freedom to operate in the marketplace, without such unnecessary interference. We take the dangers of polluting emissions very seriously indeed, and those who doubt this should examine our record on acid rain.
For various geographical and historical reasons, acid deposition and its harmful effects were not always recognised as a major problem in the United Kingdom. If we go back far enough in time, of course, the scientific understanding that we now have of such matters simply did not exist. We should take that point on board. Our island status and the measures, such as tall chimneys,

taken to protect our main population centres meant that we did not always view this problem in quite the same way as some of our neighbours.
I am happy to report that those days are long gone. The United Kingdom is now playing a full part in international efforts to reduce the emissions which contribute to acid deposition. We have already made great progress. For example, our emissions of sulphur dioxide, one of the two main acid rain-causing gases, are down by almost 40 per cent. from 1970 levels. But we are not resting there—we agree that we need to do more.
We are therefore implementing fully the European Community's large combustion plants directive, under which we are committed to reducing our 1980 levels of emissions of sulphur dioxide by 60 per cent. by 2003 and of nitrogen oxides by 30 per cent. by 1998. The United Kingdom's national plan for implementation of the directive sets out specific annual emission limits for both National Power and PowerGen. I must stress that there is no question of the use of a new fuel such as orimulsion at a particular plant being allowed to cause the limits to be broken. Greenpeace's concerns are wrong.

Mr. Dobson: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Maclean: No, I must get on.
We have spoken about the public concern about proposals to burn orimulsion. I hope that what I have said this evening will offer some reassurance to those concerned about this issue. These applications will not go through on the nod. Under our new legislation, the applicants will have to conform to requirements that are tougher and more detailed than any that we have seen before. I can also confirm that public participation is another crucial element in our pollution control apparatus. National Power's applications for Pembroke and Padiham have been advertised to the public and put on public display.
A substantial number of representations have been received and the inspectorate will take these carefully into account in reaching decisions on the applications before it. If an authorisation is issued, it will be placed in the public registers—held by HMIP and the relevant local authority —as will key documents relating to the operation of the plant such as any monitoring data on releases to the environment which are required to be supplied to HMIP as a condition of authorisation.
I recognise that the proposal to burn orimulsion at Padiham—and elsewhere—is a cause of genuine concern in many quarters. I hope that what I have said will reassure some people. The electricity generators must be free to make operational decisions, but at the same time they must also meet rigorous environmental standards. Our pollution watchdog is scrutinising these applications and will insist—
The motion having been made at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.